The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.05.2013 and the order dated 29.07.2011 which are impugned at Annexures-A and B to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking that a mandamus be issued to the first respondent to return the lease deed to the Sub-Registrar to register the same without requiring the petitioner to pay any additional stamp duty.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage would point out that the petitioner has subsequently paid the additional stamp duty that had been demanded under protest and the registration had been completed. In that light, the second prayer in its present form does not survive for consideration. But it is submitted that a consideration be made with regard to the refund of the additional stamp duty that had been paid by the petitioner under protest to secure registration.

3. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to lease on 05.04.2005 with M/s Dynasty Properties Private Limited. The said M/s Dynasty Properties Private Limited were carrying out the development of a project named Embassy Prime in the land bearing Plot No.66/2, Embassy Business Park, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 075. As per the said agreement, the lease was proposed after the third and fourth floors of Wing B of the building were constructed. The agreement also provided for the nature of the facilities to be provided in the building and in that light, the property in question was to be taken on lease. As per the case of the petitioner, there was certain dispute between the parties viz., M/s Embassy Construction and Development Private Limited and the owners of the land which resulted in arbitration proceedings before the Hon’ble Arbitrator. The award therein was passed on 19.11.2008. In that light, M/s Dynasty Properties Private Limited who had derived the right in respect of the property had entered into the sale transaction with M/s Carbon Specialities Limited. In view of the said development, the petitioner was to be the lessee under M/s Carbon Specialities Limited. However, in view of the earlier understanding both M/s Carbon Specialities Limited and M/s Dynasty Properties Private Limited have executed a lease deed dated 13.08.2009 in favour of the petitioner. The said document was presented for registration. However, at that point, the Registering Authority on taking note of the Clause contained in the agreement referring to the agreement to lease dated 05.04.2005 had kept the registration pending since additional stamp duty was required to be paid by considering the lease period in terms of the date indicated therein with respect to the agreement to lease dated 05.04.2005. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such action had preferred the appeal and the revision petition. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have upheld the action of the Registering Authority in demanding the additional stamp duty in terms of Article 30 of Schedule to Karnataka Stamp Act. It is in that view, the impugned orders have been passed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority with which the petitioner claims to be aggrieved and is before this Court.

4. The respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify their action. Essentially, the contentions urged in the objection statement are similar to the reasons assigned by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority to justify their action.

5. Though elaborate arguments have been addressed, the main aspect which arises for consideration in the instant petition is as to whether the demise of the premises to the lessee from the lessor is to be taken into consideration from 01.01.2009 i.e., the day on which the petitioner had become the lessee under the lease deed dated 13.08.2009 which had been registered or does the earlier agreement has any relevance for that purpose. In that light, the issue is also as to whether the Registering Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Auth