Shaji P. Chaly, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P3, P7 and P9, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- towards stamp duty and fine as per the direction of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad in R.C.P No.64 of 2014 and consequential actions thereto. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows :

2. Petitioner had let out his building bearing No.11/297 situated in Palakkad Taluk to the 1st respondent for a period of eleven months, as per Ext.P1 lease agreement. Ext.P1 was executed in Non Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs.100/-. Since the 1st respondent sub-let the shop room, petitioner filed RCP No.64 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad, seeking to evict him. The said RCP was tried along with O.S.No.748 of 2014 filed by the 1st respondent seeking prohibitory injunction against forcible eviction. Both the aforesaid proceedings were compromised as per joint statement dated 11.08.2015 and compromise filed vide I.A.No.2446 of 2015 dated 10.08.2015. However, in Ext.P2 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Palakkad, dated 13.08.2015, it is stipulated as follows :

"Penalty and stamp duty as per the order dated 01.08.2015 impounding Ext.A1 document as per Section 33 of the Kerala Stamp Act is not paid by the petitioner in spite of time being given for the same. Therefore, sent the impounded document for further steps under Section 37(2) of Kerala Stamp Act to the District Collector."

It is the contention of the petitioner that in the joint statement as well as in the compromise filed in the aforesaid proceedings, it was agreed by and between the petitioner and the 1st respondent that in case of levy of stamp duty by the authorities, the same shall be borne by the petitioner and 1st respondent equally.

3. Subsequently, petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 notice, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- as directed by the Rent Control Court, Palakkad in Ext.P2 order. On failure, it is threatened, revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated. According to the petitioner, even though petitioner had attempted to submit Ext.P4 application to the 3rd respondent, the same was not accepted to the files. It is contended that since the subject matter is compromised, as per Article 33 (b) in the schedule to Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, stamp duty is Rs.18,000/-. As per Section 30(b) of the Stamp Act, the 1st respondent is liable to pay the amount and therefore, it is necessary to make him a party in the above proceedings. Petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to refer the issue of levy of penalty for considering plea of the petitioner. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent purportedly under Section 39 of the Kerala Stamp Act, requesting to waive the stamp duty, which is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, Ext.P7 notice is issued by the District Registrar (General), Palakkad, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty as ordered by the Munsiff Court. Petitioner has also filed Ext.P8 through lawyer, disputing the liability of the petitioner. Fact remains, the direction to remit the amount by the District Registrar (General) was not complied with by the petitioner and finally, Ext.P9 was also issued by the District Registrar (General) to the petitioner directing to make the payment. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to sustain the reliefs sought for by him.

4. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, the entire actions initiated by the respondents are in accordance with law, and in view of the directives issued by the Munsiff Court in RCP No.64 of 2014. That apart, it is stated that petitioner submitted a request before the 2nd respondent seeking to absolve him from the payment of the amount, exercising the discretionary power of the Collector as per Section 39(1)(