ORDER :

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order, dated 06.05.2008 in P.Mu.No.41646/P1/2007 of the first respondent and the order dated 06.08.2007 in No.2/07 of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the second respondent to forthwith release the Document No.29/07 on its file.

2. The short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

2.1. The landed property for an extent of 36 cents 7 links together with the buildings in ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor in new T.S.No.38/57 Old Ward No.3 in Chinthamani village, Oraiyur Sub-District, Thiruchirapalli District, originally belongs to one M.Padmavathy, M.Sivaraman, M.Jayanthi and M.Saraswathi, the wife, son and daughters of late S.Mahadevan.

2.2. They executed a power of attorney in favour of one M.Anand on 01.11.2004. On the strength of the said power, Anand negotiated with the petitioner for sale of the property and accordingly, after fixing the sale consideration, the sale was effected and the sale deed was registered on 04.09.2006 on the file of the second respondent. The total sale consideration of Rs.2,13,61,200/- was paid and accordingly the necessary stamp duty for the said sale deed also have been paid and it was registered as such by the second respondent office and since the said sale, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

2.3. When that being so, subsequently, the petitioner came to understand that, even before the sale deed was executed by M.Anand, i.e., the power of attorney holder, in favour of the petitioner, one among the four persons, i.e. principals who executed the power in favour of Anand, that M.Sivaraman had cancelled the power on 24.11.2005. It further comes to know that, the said Sivaraman though cancelled the power on 24.11.2005 had not conveyed the same to M.Anand, i.e. power of attorney holder.

2.4. However, when the said issue of cancellation of power had came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner, in order to confirm the sale that was effected on 04.09.2006, wanted the said Sivaraman to give a consent deed and accordingly, agreeing with the same, Sivaraman has executed a consent deed for the sale and when the said consent deed was presented before the second respondent for registration it was objected by the second respondent on the ground that, though it has been claimed to be the consent deed, since on the date of the original deed was executed on 04.09.2006 one of the principals since cancelled the power as early as on 24.11.2005 on the date of sale dated 04.09.2006, the said Sivaraman's property or share were not properly conveyed through the sale deed dated 04.09.2006. Therefore, the present consent deed executed by the said Sivaraman can only be treated as fresh deed as now only through this consent deed, the sale of Sivaraman's portion is being conveyed to the petitioner. Therefore, it shall be treated as a fresh sale deed and for the said purpose, stamp duty ad-valorem to be calculated for the said portion of the property of Sivaraman shall be paid.

2.5. Making this stand of the second respondent, an order was passed by the second respondent on 06.08.2007, as against which, the petitioner preferred appeal to the first respondent and the said appeal also was rejected by the order dated 06.05.2008. Therefore, challenging the same, the petitioner has moved this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

3. Heard Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, no doubt on the date of sale which was effected on 04.09.2006 neither the power of attorney holder nor the petitioner did not know that one of the principal i.e. Sivaraman cancelled the power given in favour of one Anand as early as on 24.11.2005. Nevertheless the sale has been executed and sale deed has been registered, for which the entire sale conside