( 1 ) PETITIONER who had purchased two properties in respect of which the sale deeds had been presented for registration before the Sub- registrar, Jayanagar, Bangalore, as on 9. 8. 2002 and in respect of which registration, further proceedings have been taken by the respondents, is now aggrieved by the orders dated 30th October 2002 vide Annexure-C and D, whereunder the 1st respondent District registrar has directed the petitioner to pay a further sum of rs. 14,480/- being the differential stamp duty payable in respect of the pending document No. 30/2002-2003 and a sum of Rs. 23,780/ - in respect of pending document No. 31/2002-2003 and has sought for quashing of these two orders/demands.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had presented the two documents for registration on 9th August 2002. The Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, before whom it was presented and who is the registering authority, was of the view that the true market value of the properties in question has not been stated in the documents and as such granted only provisional registration and simultaneously referred the two documents for proper determination of the market value of the properties, which is the subject matter of the documents on the premise that the properties are under valued, to the District Registrar, Prevention of Under valuation of the Instruments, Jayanagar Division, Bangalore.

( 3 ) THE District Registrar for Under Valuation thereafter issued two notices both dated 16. 8. 2002 copies of which are produced at annexure A and B, apprising the petitioner about such reference by the Sub Registrar and for determination of the market value of the properties in question and called upon the petitioner to submit supporting material to justify the valuation as intimated in the instrument copies at Annexure A and B. The notices also warned the petitioner that if no proper explanation is furnished within the permitted time, the issue will be settled on the available material.

( 4 ) SRI Subrahmanya Jois, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had given a representation to the 1st respondent the District Registrar as per Annexure-C dated 26th august 2002. The gist of the representation is that the subject lands mentioned in the sale deed are not valuable lands as there is no proper drinking water facility or sanitary facility for the area being a private layout in the locality and having regard to such circumstances, the value of the properties is not high or is as much as in other localities and requested the Registrar to take into consideration such aspects and to determine the property valuation, accept the difference of duty if any, payable and for release of the documents.

( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that there was no further notice or response from the authorities and the petitioner has been straight away called upon to pay the stamp duties as indicated earlier as per the two orders dated 30. 10. 2002 vide Annexures-D and E. It is aggrieved by these two orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

( 6 ) SRI H. Subramanya Jois, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are vitiated by nonapplication of mind, are arbitrary and have been passed without taking into consideration relevant aspects in this regard. The learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to Rule 5 of the Karnataka stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation Instruments) Rules, 1977, and submits that the Officer concerned was required to determine the value of the house site as indicated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and it was incumbent upon the 1st respondent to refer to the peculiar circumstances and the conditions prevailing in the locality in which the properties were situated as indicated in the representation dated 26. 8. 2002. But, on the other hand, the orders proceed on the premise that in spite of two notices dated 16. 8. 2002 and 28. 8. 2002 having been issued, there was no re