The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings for recovery of deficit stamp duty must comply with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and adhere to the principles of natural justice.

1. A proceeding initiated by the District Registrar / the 1st respondent herein in Proceedings Ku.Na. No: 63/B1/99 dated 28.02.2005 and a consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent on 05.04.2008 are called in question, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to release document No: 619/98 dated 25.05.1998.

2. According to the petitioner, by registered sale deeds dated 25.01.1993 and 07.05.1993, the petitioner and one V.K. Mani purchased the lands in question jointly and, thereafter, by a registered partition deed dated 25.05.1998, they have partitioned the said property, which they claim to be agricultural lands. While so, the 2nd respondent in its letter dated 10.04.2000 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- towards deficit stamp duty for Document No: 619 of 1998 for which partition has been effected between the petitioner and the said V.K. Mani. It is the petitioner's case that the said V.K. Mani has assured him that he would approach the respondents

1 and 2 and get the document cleared as the agricultural lands have been treated as commercial lands and in any case, there cannot be a stamp duty of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- for the partition which is impermissible in law. The 2nd respondent has sent another letter on 21.03.2003 directing the petitioner and V.K. Mani to produce the document for spot inspection. Even though the petitioner was ready with the document, the 2nd respondent didn't come for inspection. But to the shock and surprise, the 1st respondent issued a certificate under Section 33 A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and directed the recovery of the above said amount under Section 48 of the Act without following the procedure contemplated under Section

33 A (1) of the Act. According to him, no certificate under Section 33 A (1) o the Act shall be granted without due enquiry and an opportunity of hearing and though the letters dated 23.01.2000 and 20.02.2000 have been served on the petitioner, they are not notices under Section 33 A (1) of the Act and the enquiry under the said Section cannot be invoked after three years from the date of registration of the instrument. Even after the order dated 20.08.2005, the said V.K. Mani has informed the petitioner that he will pursue the matter but, he has not chosen to do so. But the 3rd respondent has issued notice under the Revenue Recovery Act on 05.04.2008, thereby informing the petitioner that in the absence of the payment of the amount being deficit stamp duty, the revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated and, therefore, the said proceeding challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the proceedings contemplated by the respondents without following the procedure is liable to be set aside as the said proceedings are without issuance of notice and without an opportunity and beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act.

3. The 1st respondent has filed counter and stated that the averment of the petitioner that the properties partitioned between the petitioner and V.K.Mani are agricultural lands are denied as the property comprised in Survey No: 106/1 have been converted as house sites according to Document No: 1695 of 1984 and 704 of 1992 and, therefore, the property value for partition has been fixed as Rs. 20,56,000/- and the stamp duty leviable on the said value is Rs. 82,240/-, according to Article 45 of the Act. Further the registration fee payable is Rs. 20,566/- after deducting the stamp duty of Rs. 1,250/-and the registration fee of Rs.310/- deficit stamp duty and the registration fee totally works out to Rs. 1,01,240/- and this respondent has fixed the sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- as compounding fee in lieu of prosecuting the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 are ready to inspect the property but the petitioner failed to turn up to identify the property for inspection.

4. It is the stand of the respondent that certificate has be