R. Mahadevan, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the impugned letter vide N.K. No. 4067/R1/2012 dated 18.1.2013 issued by the Respondent, and to direct the Respondent to collect the stamp duty in difference, in respect of 46 cents comprised in Survey No. 271/4 in Thanichiyam Village, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District. Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased 46 cents of Nanja Land comprised in S. No. 271/4 in Thanichiyam village from one Indra W/o. late. Nachiappan for a valuable consideration. The sale deed was registered on 23.04.2005 at Parasalai Sub Registrar office in Kerala State as Document No. 769/2005. The said Indra had also sold her another 1/2 cent land to the petitioner situated at Parasali village at Kerala State through the above said sale deed.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner paid Rs. 640/- as stamp duty and a sum of Rs. 285/- towards registration fee as directed by the Sub Registrar of Parasalai in order to register the above said sale deed. To make necessary entries in respect of the petitioners 46 cents Nanja land comprised in S. No. 271/4, the petitioner had approached the respondent with an application, dated 21.11.2012 and agreed to pay the stamp duty in difference and other fees, if any. Along with the application, the petitioner produced Form No. 23, issued by the Parasalai Sub Registrar Office in favour of the respondent.

4. The learned counsel has continued that the respondent sent the impugned letter and refused to receive the stamp duty in difference, by quoting Section 28B of the Registration Act, 1908, as the purchase of the petitioner is invalid as it has been registered out side Tamil Nadu, which is in contravention to Section 28(a) of the Registration Act.

5. The learned counsel has added that the respondent had stated in the impugned letter that the petitioner had registered her sale deed at Parasalai on 23.04.2005, which was after the Amendment of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act No. 19/1997 dated 29.03.1997, and hence, it is not possible to collect the stamp duty in difference and registration fee etc., from the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel has contended that when 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for the payment of stamp duty in difference, the respondent ought not to have denied to receive the same and therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court and that the writ petition may be ordered as prayed for.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader has stated that admittedly, the petitioner had purchased 46 cents Nanja land comprised in S. No. 271/4 in Thanichiyam village, Vadipattai Taluk, Madurai District. Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes the place of registering the documents.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner, in contravention of Section 28, had registered her sale deed in respect of the property situate in Tamil Nadu, in the Sub Registrar's Office, Parasalai, Kerala State on 23.04.2005. The said Sub Registrar parasalai Kerala State, under Section 65 of the Registration Act, through the petitioner, forwarded the Memorandum relating to the said sale deed registered as Doc. No. 796/2005 to the respondent and the petitioner has come forward to remit the difference in stamp duty and registration fees.

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that in the light of Section 28of the Registration Act, there was no effective registration and the transaction has become null and void. Hence, the respondent refused to act on an invalid document. The Provision of Section 19B is not applicable to a document, which is null and void in the eye of law. It has been mandated in Section 28 of the Registration Act itself that any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu in Contravention of the provisions of clause (a) shall be deemed to be null and void. There is no