The writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, Inspector General of Registration, in Lr.No.42868/C3/2005 dated 01.08.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith refund a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- paid towards stamp duty with due interest to the petitioner herein.

2. Thepetitioner, M.Abubackar Siddiq, purchased the land and building in S.No.335/1, Chinna Salem in the public auction held on 011. 2004 by the 3rd respondent herein, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Villupuram. Thereafter, the Sale Certificate was certified in favour of the petitioner and the same was also published in Villupuram District Gazette No.2, dated 16.02.2005. But, the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent refused to file the Sale Certificate in Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act. As the petitioner was badly in need of funds, he was compelled to pay the stamp duty as claimed by the 2nd respondent and paid a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-under protest towards stamp duty for filing the Sale Certificate in Book No.1. Only after the payment of stamp duty, the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent filed the Sale Certificate in Book No.1. Under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Officer shall file the copy of the Sale Certificate received from the Revenue Officer in the Book No.1 maintained in the office. Since the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent refused to file the Sale Certificate, which is also against the provisions of the Act, the petitioner made a representation on 07.07.2005 to the Inspector General of Registration/1st respondent requesting to refund the stamp duty paid by the petitioner with due interest. But, unfortunately, the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent, without looking into the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, erroneously rejected the representation made by the petitioner, vide proceedings in Lr.No.42868/C3/2005 dated 01.08.2005, stating that the stamp duty collected is in order. As per Section 89 (4) of the Act, the Sub-Registrar/2nd respondent is under an obligation to file the Sale Certificate in Book No.1. However, the Inspector General of Registration/1st respondent without looking into the relevant provisions of the Act, rejected the request of the petitioner for refund of stamp duty. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court challenging the impugned order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the 1st respondent to refund the stamp duty already paid by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed a detailed counter opposing the prayer raised by the petitioner for refund of the stamp duty paid by him on his own, on the ground that the payment of stamp duty by the petitioner at the time of execution of the document is in order as per Article 18(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, in as much as any document, whether registrable or not under Article 18(c) of the India Stamp Act, stamp duty shall be paid before or at the time of execution. Therefore, it was not correct to say that coercive steps were taken by the respondents for the payment of stamp duty. The petitioner has voluntarily come forward to pay the stamp duty, knowing the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the petitioner is not aggrieved in any way and, above all, the same duty has been paid to the exchequer, as it is lawfully due to the State Government as per the Act and hence, the petitioner is not prejudiced in any way. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the amount so collected from the petitioner was according to the Indian Stamp Act and thus, the petitioner is not eligible for any relief.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The question raised in the present writ petition is whether the stamp duty collected from the petitioner/auction purchaser of immovable property, sold in the sales tax recovery proceedings for the purpose