JUDGMENT :

B. Veerappa, J.

All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsements bearing No.STP-199/11-12, STP-194/11-12 and STP-196/11-12 dated 02.01.2012 at Annexure-D in all the writ petitions issued by respondent No.1-Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess stamp duty of Rs.3,89,160/- in respect of GPA dated 25.03.2011, Rs.3,24,000/- in respect of GPA dated 28.02.2011 and Rs.2,04,120/- in respect of GPA dated 30.09.2010 at Annexure-A in all the writ petitions.

I. Facts of the case:

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property residentially converted vacant land bearing No.85, having Khatha No.268/123/85 measuring 7206 Sq. Ft. situated at Hollywood Town, Hathore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District having purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.1996, property bearing Katha No.203/86/87 measuring 6000 Sq. Ft. situated at Swiss Town, Illathore Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District having purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.10.2004 and property bearing Katha No.146/358 measuring 3780 Sq. Ft. situated at Swiss Town, Illathore Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District having purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.2003.

3. It is further case of the petitioners that they were intending to sell their properties and accordingly, appointed Mr. John Robert Colaco as their Power of Attorney Holder under a registered General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2011, 28.02.2011 and 30.09.2010, authorizing the attorney to sell the property as the petitioners were not in a position to be personally present to execute the sale deed on account of their other preoccupation. At the time of execution of the registered GPA before respondent No.2, petitioners have paid stamp duty of Rs.3,89,160/-, Rs.3,24,000/- and Rs.2,04,120/- respectively. It is further case of the petitioners that Power of Attorney executed (stated supra), was without consideration and it did not create any right, interest in or over the property in favour of the agent and it is only an authorization/authority to sell the property. On the basis of the said Power of Attorney executed, the Power of Attorney Holder inturn has executed absolute Sale Deed in favour of Mr. Agnelo Francisco Cabral, Mrs. Terezinha Diniz Cabal and Mr. Trevor Savio Cabral in W.P. No.12376/2014, Mr. Cedric Francis Pinto and Mrs. Lumina Jacintha Pinto in W.P. No.12377/2014 and Mr. Kenneth John Sequeira and Mrs. Wilma Sequeira in W.P. No.12379/2014 as per Annexure-B in all the writ petitions for valuable consideration and the stamp duty was paid on the respective sale deeds.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 without denoting or reducing the stamp duty, already paid on the GPAs, in respect of the same property has not refunded the excess stamp duty collected from the petitioners. Therefore, the attorney holder in all the writ petitions made representations to respondent No.1 on 15.12.2011 requesting for refund of excess stamp duty paid on the GPAs, which was not denoted on the sale deeds. The respondent No.1 considering the representations made by the petitioners, by the impugned endorsements dated 02.01.2012 at Annexure-D in all the writ petitions rejected the representations on the ground that the parties to the GPAs and parties to the Sale Deeds are different and in view of proviso to Article 41(eb) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act, ) the parties to the GPAs and parties to the Sale Deeds should be same in respect of same properties. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.

II. Statement of Objections by the State:

5. The State filed statement of objections justifying the action of respondent No.1 and contended that on the date of execution of the registered GPAs, as per Article 41 (eb) of the