These two petitions have been filed challenging the validity of Sections 45-A and 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, 1908 and for consequential relief.

2. In W.P. No. 45953 of 2001, the prayer is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner on 29-5-2001 which is received by the 3rd respondent.

3. In W.P. No. 1992 of 2000, the prayer is common and also to strike down Sections 45-A and 45-B of the Act and to declare the sale deed Annexure-A is properly valued and to direct the 3rd respondent to register the document according to the Stamp Act and the Registration Act and, for such other relief.

4. In W.P. No. 45953 of 2001, petitioner has presented four documents/sale deeds on 29-5-2001 for having purchased land in Sy. No. 1/1B of Bramhapur of Gulbarga District, for registration. The 3rd respondent received the sale deeds and collected the registration fee vide P. Nos. 47,48,49 and 50/2001-02 and the Stamp Duty. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for Stamps alleging that there is undervaluation of the property and he also issued notice as per Rule 4 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1977. Petitioner filed objections on 23-7-2001. According to the petitioner, the land in question was a morass which required to be cleared of thorny bushes and he has to fill up the muskeg by investing huge amount and the land was not being capable of being sold due to stagnation of drain water and further, the waste dumped was to be dealt and the said land cannot be compared with other lands in the area as such, having regard to the nature of the property, the market value of the property was properly set forth in the document for the purpose of sale consideration. It is also stated that there is no such undervaluation as alleged by the respondent and that he has spent nearly Rs. 25 lakhs to clear the area and make the land as it is now. It is also stated that petitioner is also the owner of the neighboring non-agricultural land which was purchased in the year 1997 as per Annexure-Z1 and the land in question was also agreed to be purchased in the same year but the formalities could not be completed for several technical reasons including litigation, and there was postponement of the registration. According to the petitioner, the document which was earlier registered during 1977 should be the basis for fixing the market value and that should be compared with the document presented. When the petitioner made a request to release the original document/sale deed on 6-1-2001 for obtaining necessary sanction for future development of the property, an endorsement was given by the 2nd respondent on 8-10-2001 stating that the documents were not registered and as such, could not be returned. Further, it is stated• that the 3rd respondent has referred the instrument to the 2nd respondent alleging that there is undervaluation, without registering the document as per Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act. According to the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and 3rd respondent was required to register the document, he had no authority to refuse and at the most, he could refuse registration only as per the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act and there was no reason to refuse registration or to keep the process of registration pending as contemplated under the Registration Act. It is also submitted that certain safeguards have been provided under Section 80-A of the Registration Act to protect the State's revenue by any of stamp duty and registration charges. As such, non-registration of the instrument during pendency of enquiry by keeping the document pending registration and compelling the petitioner to pay stamp duty is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further, according to the petitioner, duty payable on