S. Lakshminarayan and 2 others vs The Inspector General of Registrar lion, Madras-1 and The Special Deputy Collector of Stamps, Collectorate Buildings Compound, Coimbatore.

Janarthanam, J.—The petitioners, who are stated to be brothers, it is said, purchased a cinema theatre situate in S.P. Nos. 83, 84/1 bearing

door No. 2A, 2A(2) in Avinashi Road, in Tiruppur town as per Document No. 790/87 dated 19-3-87 for consideration of Rs. 14,50,000. The

said document, it is said, had been presented before the Sub-Registrar, Thiruppur for registration and the said document, in fact, had been

registered on 19-3-1987, but impounded for deficit stamps and referred to the Special Deputy Collector of Stamps, Collectorate Buildings

Compound, Coimbatore (Second respondent) for enquiry and decision. The second respondent is stated to have passed a provisional order dated

20-12-1987, by which he demanded the petitioners to pay additional stamps to the value of Rs. 50,747-90. The petitioners, by their application

dated 20-1-1980 sought reconsideration of the order and the second respondent, in turn, by his order dated 31-8-1988 reduced the additional

stamps to be paid by the petitioner as Rs. 46,834-60. The aggrieved petitioners preferred appeal in C.M.A. No. 5 of 1988 before the

Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur/Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 29-3-1989 allowed the appeal and directed the

petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 9,125 as additional stamps.

Thereafter, the petitioners, in due compliance of the said order, deposited the amount of Rs. 9,125 into the credit of ""Stamp Registration-Deficit

Stamps"" with State Bank of India, Thiruppur on 3-5-1989 and forwarded a copy of the said chalan along with a letter dated 3-5-1989 to the

second respondent requesting him to release the impounded document. Despite the fact that the petitioners it is said, issued lawyer''s notice more

than once to the Inspector-General of Registration, Madras-1 (first respondent) and the second respondent as well, calling upon them to release

the registered deed, they failed to comply with the demand so made, necessitating them to resort to the present action praying for issue of a writ of

Mandamus directing the respondents to return the impugned document No. 790/87 on the file of the Sub-Registrar. Thiruppur duly registered and

entered thereon with payment of deficit stamps of Rs. 9,125.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strenuously contend that though the petitioners deposited the requisite stamps as per the

order of the Appellate Authority and nearly four years elapsed, since such deposit, yet the respondents for no reason whatever, had not released

the registered deed so as to enable them, with all promptitude, to initiate further steps for running of the cinema theatre, after procuring necessary

and requisite licence and that because of the delay caused in not releasing the registered sale deed, they were unable to obtain necessary licence

for the running of the cinema theatre causing them untold hardship and agency, besides causing monetary loss in a huge way and that therefore,

under such circumstances, it is but reasonable and proper for this Court to issue necessary direction as prayed for.

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would however, repel such a submission and state that since the

Government filed a Civil Revision Petition in this Court, there is no justification to release the impounded document, even though the petitioners had

paid the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 9,125/ as ordered by the Appellate Authority.

No doubt, true it is, that in paragraph 4 of the counter, it has been mentioned that the Government have filed a Civil Revision Petition, which is

still pending in S.R. No. 12442/90 in this Court. As a matter of curiosity to ascertain as to what was the reason for the said Civil Revision Petition,

which was filed as early as in 1990 is still pending in SR. number stage, the concerned bundle was sent for and it was found out that the same had

been returned as early as 13-4-1990. Consequently, learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to produce the returned records for

perusal of this Court. The returned records had, in fact, been produced by learned Additional Government Pleader.

A perusal of the records reveals that the order of the Appellate Authority had been delivered on 29-3-1989 and the Government applied for

certified copy the next day of the order, namely, 30-3-1989. Copy was made ready on 2-6-1989 and delivered on 5-6-1989. Despite such

delivery having been taken, the Civil Revision Petition had been filed, after an inordinate delay of more than, eight months on 9-2-1990 with a

petition to excuse the delay caused in filing the same. What is further worse is that the return made on 13-4-1990 for compliance of certain defects

by the office is yet to be rectified and the bundle represented. Pertinent it is to mention at this juncture, already nearly four years lapsed, since the

date of deposit of the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 9,125. It is not known as to when the Government is to represent the returned records relatable to

the Civil Revision Petition filed by them. The further uncertainty is as to whether the same will be entertained by excusing the inordinate delay

caused, not only in filing but also in representation. Even assuming for argument''s sake that such delay is to be condoned and the Civil Revision

Petition is numbered, the further uncertainty is at the stage when the Civil Revision Petition is to be admitted and disposed of.

In such circumstances, it is quite unfair and unreasonable for the respondents to impound the document, thereby preventing the petitioners from

running the cinema theatre, after procuring necessary and requisite licence. By the inordinate delay so caused in. releasing the impounded

document, it is pretty certain that the petitioners would have incurred financial loss in a large measure. In such state of affairs, the best course to be

adopted is to direct the respondents to immediately release the impugned document to the petitioners, subject to the condition that in case this

court, on entertaining the Civil Revision Petition, reverses the order of the Appellate Authority and Stamp duty and penalty is enhanced the

petitioners will be mulcted with such enhanced, liability towards stamps duty and penalty, in the sense of requiring them to make necessary and

requisite deposit thereof before the Sub Registrar, Thiruppur. The Writ Petition is thus disposed of with the abovesaid direction. There shall,

however, be no order as to costs.