1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the direction to the respondent no.1 to accept and decide the application dated 05.01.2007 at Annexure 'K' of the petition under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that the letter dated 31.05.2007 by the respondent no.1 issued to the petitioner is illegal, void and inoperative and hence the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the same and also the direction to grant refund of the excess amount of stamp duty paid by the petitioner.

2. This Court has issued Rule on 21.04.2008. Pursuant to the service of rule, an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 on 29.12.2008.

3. Heard Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Trusha K. Patel, the learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the land bearing Survey No.37, Block No.109, admeasuring 3 hectare 17 Are 68 Sq. meters, i.e. total 31,768 sq. meters situated at Village Bharthana, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. The said undivided land was equally owned by two different sets of persons. Half portion of the said land belonged to Jethiben Thakorebhai Ambelal Patel and others. The petitioner purchased the said half portion of the land from the said owners through their power of attorneys for a sum of Rs.23,99,100/= by executing a sale deed dated 27.02.2006. The sale deed was presented to the respondent no.3 for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Notice dated 27.02.2006 under Rule 3(2) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 came to be issued whereby the respondent no.3 called upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.30,00,215/= within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and conveyed that incase of default, the said document will be sent to the respondent no.2 under Section 32A(1) of The Bombay Stamp Act.

5. The petitioner also purchased the other half portion of the said land from its owners and power of attorneys namely Balubhai Kanjibhai Patel and others by paying a consideration of Rs.56,99,176/=. The said sale deed was also presented before respondent no.3 for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. The respondent no.3 issued notice under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules and called upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty as stated therein. The petitioner paid the said stamp duty and the said sale deed came to be registered.

6. Thereafter the respondent no.3 referred the sale deed dated 27.02.2006 to the respondent no.2. The petitioner filed his reply on 03.06.2006 stating therein that even as per Jantri, the rate of the said agricultural land was only Rs.600/= per sq. meters whereas much higher value was stated in the said notice. By an order dated 06.06.2006, the respondent no.2 fixed the value of the said land at Rs.3,24,03,360/= and directed to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.25,19,886/= and Rs.250/= towards penalty. The petitioner accordingly paid the stamp duty and as a result thereof, the respondent no.3 registered the sale deed at Serial No.2504 on 03.08.2006.

7. During the month of August 2006, while going through the sale deed dated 27.02.2006, it came to the notice that in the said registered sale deed, by mistake the area of the undivided half portion of the land purchased by him is mentioned as land admeasuring 63,536 sq. meters. While infact, the actual area of the said land sold to the petitioner is 15,884 sq. meters. To rectify the said mistake in the registered sale deed dated 27.02.2006, the petitioner executed a correction deed and got it registered on 02.09.2006 at Serial No.11395 in the office of the