Petitioners are before this Court challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Pa.Mu.No.13160/P1/2008, dated 23.11.2009 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to return the document registered as pending Document No.20 of 2003 after due registration.

2. According to the petitioners, the 4th petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner, viz. Dr. Mrs. Christy Ganapathy. According to the 4th petitioner/Dr. Sheela Rajapandian, on 05.05.1977, her father Late. R.J.S. Ganapathy along with her mother Dr. Christy Ganapathy, i.e. the 2nd petitioner, constituted a partnership firm and were running a Hospital at Gandhipuram as a family partnership business. After the demise of the 4th petitioner's father, the partnership was reconstituted with the 4th petitioner and the 3rd petitioner viz. Dr. B.P. Ganapathy and they were inducted to the partnership firm in the name and style of Sheela Clinic , by a Deed of Partnership, dated 11.07.1983.

3. In June 2003, the 4th petitioner decided to retire from the family firm and a deed of retirement was drawn up on 30.06.2003 between the 4th petitioner and the other petitioners and after scrutinizing the accounts for the period ending 30.06.2003, a deed of retirement was prepared, whereby, it has been agreed that amounts standing to the credit of the 4th petitioner to an extent of 25% share in the firm would be fully settled in cash and also in the form of three items of immovable properties. The time frame within which the cash component would be paid to the 4th petitioner was put forth in the Deed of Retirement along with the clauses for interest in case of any delay in such payments being effected. Further, a separate Release Deed was executed on 07.08.2003 in favour of the 4th petitioner, whereas, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners released their rights, title and interests in the properties mentioned in the Deed of Retirement and fully vested the properties in the name of the 4th petitioner and the same was presented before the 2nd respondent for registration.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Release Deed was presented before the 2nd respondent and the same was kept pending vide Doc. No.20 of 2003. There was an inordinate delay in returning the document from the Sub-Registrar Office. Despite several visits to the Sub Registrar's office and sending a letter dated 04.11.2003 through Registered Post, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.07.2004 vide Mo.1764/2003 to the petitioners, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.30,10,000/- as deficit amount in stamp duty and explain as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for violating Sections 27 and 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'Act') and further stating that documents would attract only Article 55 (D)(ii) of Schedule I to the Act. The petitioners sent a detailed reply dated 12.08.2004 to the 2nd respondent, stating that no additional stamp duty can be paid by them for undervaluation, as the 2nd respondent had not chosen to proceed under Section 47-A of the Act, under which it is reiterated that the property has been correctly valued and stamp duty has been paid under Article 55 D(i) of Schedule I of the Act and the respondents cannot invoke other provisions, i.e. Article 55 (D)(ii) of Schedule I of the Act.

5. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 30.08.2004 vide No.1764/2003 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.30,10,000/- within three weeks, failing which, proceedings under Section 27 read with Section 64 of the Act would be initiated against them. Challenging the aforesaid order, petitioners approached the Appellate Authority and filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.28641 of 2004 seeking to quash the order dated 30.08.2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently return the document pending in Doc.No.20 of 2003. By an order dated 12.09.2007, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition, by setting aside the impugned order and directed