Failure to challenge the demand for deficit stamp duty or file an appeal as provided under the Stamp Act renders a writ petition seeking to quash an order directing payment of deficit stamp duty misconceived.

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the production of records from the respondents culminating in the issue of impugned order dated 2. 1999 from the second respondent, quash the same.

2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 2. 99, wherein, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.27269/- being the deficit stamp duty payable to the Government on account of the sale deed No.737 of 1992 produced by him before the first respondent for registration. It is seen from the records that the first respondent, not satisfied with the stamp duty paid by the petitioner and as the documents accompanied only a deficit stamp duty, impounded the documents and directed the petitioner to pay the balance stamp duty. The petitioner did not care to collect the documents after paying the deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, on the requisition made by the first respondent by invoking the provision of Revenue Recovery Act, the second respondent issued the impugned notice. The petitioner did not challenge the decision of the first respondent in demanding the deficit stamp duty nor did he file any appeal provided under the Stamp Act with the appellate authority.

3. On the contrary, the petitioner has come forward to challenge only the second respondents proceedings. The writ petition was admitted on 3. 1999 pending writ petition, the petitioner was directed to furnish security to the satisfaction of the respondent and also file an undertaking that he will not alienate the property in question.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to say whether the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this court on 3. 1999 or not.

5. On notice from this court, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 5. 1999. In paragraph 8, which reads as follows:

"Impounding of documents after registration is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. So long as the document which is insufficiently stamped is in the hands of the officer vested with power to impound it under Sec.23 of the Stamp Act, to impound it and send the same to the District Registrar in order to initiate recovery proceedings. Hence the action taken by the 1st respondent is proper and justifiable. The stamp duty by whom payable for various documents are contained in Sec.29 of the Stamp Act. Hence the action of the 2nd respondent is proper".

6. In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and the same s dismissed. No costs.