Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The facts that are giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 12.6.1995 purchased a house, ground and premises within the Karur Municipality limits and also a land comprised in Janman Survey No.3 7/ 1 in Trivandrum District at Kerala. The document was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Parasala within the Trivandrum District. Subsequently, the petitioner and his vendors issued a notice contemplated under Sec.88 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality Act) for mutating the property lying within Karur Municipality, the first respondent herein. The first respondent by its notice dated 4.7.1995 in No.R.F 51/12/95/A2 declined to effect the transfer in respect of Assessment Nos. 4676 to 4677 on the sole ground that the sale deed in respect of the said premises had been registered in the State of Kerala and as per the circular of the Director of Municipal Administration, the second respondent herein, dated 22.10.1993 such transfer cannot be effected. The aforesaid action of the first respondent is being challenged in the present writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter it has been indicated that the petitioner is required to pay the duty payable under Secs.78-A and 116-A to 116-C of the Municipalities Act. It has been further stated in the counter that in view of the amended provisions of Sees. 19-B and 63-A of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Stamp Act ) in respect of the transaction in question, the petitioner is liable to pay the difference of duty as indicated in the aforesaid petition. It has been further indicated in the counter that the Inspector General of Registration has issued a circular that 5% surcharge is payable for the transfer of immovable property relating to the documents registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu as the authorities in the State of Kerala have no power to recover the surcharge payable. It has been further submitted in the counter that without calling upon the petitioner to pay the required dues, no direction should be issued regarding the effect of mutation in the name of the petitioner.

4. To appreciate the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to notice relevant provisions contained in the different statute.

Sec. 19-B and 63-A of the Stamp Act have been introduced by way of amended Tamil Nadu Stamp Act, The provision being relevant is extracted hereunder:

“Where any instrument is registered in any part of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and such instrument relates, wholly or partly to any property situate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the copy of such instrument shall, when received in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908, be liable to be charged with the difference of duty as on the original instrument.”

Sec.63-A which was introduced under Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1992 envisages

“Where the party fails to pay the difference of duty as required under Sec. 19-B, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees”.

5. It is thus clear that Sec. 19-B imposes the liability and Sec.63-A imposes penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Sec. 19-B. Neither under the Indian Stamp Act nor under the District Municipalities Act it is envisaged that the Municipality is to enforce such liability. Even assuming that any amount is payable under Sec. 19-B and the petitioner is liable to be penalised under Sec.63-A for non-compliance of Sec. 19-B, the Municipality is not a Competent Authority to take action and on the aforesaid basis, the Municipality has no jurisdiction to refuse to record the property in the name of the petitioner.

6. Sec.28 of the Registration Act contemplates that the property in respect of which sale d