1. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to return the petitioner's Instrument of Settlement dated 12.08.2015 being the pending registration Document in No.P 180/2015 on the file of the 3rd respondent, as requested in the petition of the petitioner dated 07.11.2016 to the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner, he is engaged in the business of Trading of Raw Hides and Skins, dyes and chemicals, exporting of finished leather through his sole Proprietary Concern, functioning in the name and style of International Trading Company. The petitioner purchased two pieces of agricultural lands measuring an extent of 87.5 cents in Survey No.61/9 in Noombal Village, Saidapet Taluk, then Chengalpet MGR District, now, Trivuallur District, through two registered Sale Deeds dated 16.10.1992 (42 cents in S.No.61/9) and 28.10.1992 (45 cents in S.No.61/9) respectively in the office of the 3rd respondent. The said lands were purchased in the name of the sole Proprietary Concern viz., M/s. International Trading Company.

4. Since the petitioner is aged more than 85 years and also suffering from deteriorating health condition, he thought it fit to provide out of the personal wealth to his son viz., Sunil Rallan during his lifetime itself as he had been considerate and taking care of his wife and their advanced age and also assisting the petitioner in conducting his Proprietary Concern business. In these circumstances, the petitioner executed a Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2015 in favour of his son Sunil Rallan settling the two items of agricultural lands situated in Noombal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, purchased through two Sale Deeds dated 16.10.1992 and 28.10.1992.

5. The petitioner presented the executed Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2015 for registration on 12.08.2015 with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner paid the stamp duty of Rs.25,000/- payable under Article 58 (a)(i) of the Schedule I to the Stamp Act read with the Explanation to the said Article and the Reduction and Remission Notification in G.O.Ms.No.125 C..T. & R (J1) dated 30.09.2013 as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu. However, the 3rd respondent took a view that as the property has been purchased in the name of the Proprietary Concern, it should be treated as a property of the Proprietary Concern and consequently, the said Settlement Deed dated 12.08.2015 executed by the petitioner as the sole Proprietor cannot be treated as one in favour of member or members of a family as provided under Article 58 (a)(i) read with Explanation thereto and should be dealt with under Article 58 (a)(ii) of the Schedule I of the Stamp Act as the settlement in favour of other than a family members attracting stamp duty at the rate of Rs.8/- for every Rs.100/- or part thereof of the market value of the property.

6. The petitioner contended before the 3rd respondent that the Proprietary Concern is not a legal entity and it is only business name and the said sole Proprietary Concern is nothing more than himself as an individual and the settlement is within the definition of Section 2 (24) of the Stamp Act. The petitioner also contended that the Settlement Deed has to be one to be dealt with under Article 58 (a)(i) of the Schedule I to the Stamp Act read with the Explanation thereto and the Remission notification thereof and in that view, the Settlement Deed cannot be termed as a one in favour of other than family members and is not to be dealt with under Article 58 (a)(ii) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act.

7. Not satisfied with the clarification provided by the petitioner and after observing that the petitioner did not accept to make the payment of the short duty payable on the instrument based on application of Article 58 (a)(ii) of the Stamp Act, impounded the Deed of Settlement, after assigning a pending number in P.No.180/20