ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Pass a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order No. SJN:DRI:04/20165-16/1485 dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the 2nd Respondent, calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as stamp duty and Rs.100/- as penalty and order No. SJN:DRI:04/2015-16/182 dated 16.05.2016 passed by the 2nd Respondent directing the recovery of the aforesaid stamp duty as arrears of land revenue (produced at Annexure-

F);

b. Any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner being the power of attorney holder of one Ms.Zara Hussaini D/o Dr.Nayeem Hussaini has executed a sale deed on 3.2.2016 in favour of the purchaser for residential property comprising of land measuring 6552 sq.ft. along with certain structures thereon situate in the layout known as Sunny Brooks in Doddakannelli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The said sale deed was registered by the Sub-registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore as document No.INR-1-08887- 2015-16, stored in CD No.INRD160 for a sale consideration of sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three Crores only).

3. The petitioner claims to have represented the seller/vendor in terms of Specific Power of Attorney dated 24.12.2015. On the execution of sale deed and registration thereof, the power of attorney came to be impounded under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on the ground that the same was not duly stamped and a notice came to be issued on 11.2.2016 i.e., within eight days of the registration of sale deed, calling upon the petitioner to make payment of stamp duty on the power of attorney.

4. The petitioner replied to the same contending that the power of attorney is one which is specific in nature executed for presentation of a document, there is no consideration which was paid under the said power of attorney nor is the power of attorney coupled with interest and as such it was contended that the power of attorney is liable to be stamped under Clause (a) of Article 41 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short “Act of 1957”) and not under Clause (eb) of Article 41 of the Act of 1957 and as such it was contended that the payment of sum of Rs.100/- on the Specific Power of Attorney is proper and correct.

5. The said contention of the petitioner came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 16.3.2016 calling upon the petitioner to make payment of stamp duty in terms of Clause (eb) of Article 41. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj., learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a single transaction which has occurred in the present matter and the sole purpose of execution of the Specific Power of Attorney was for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the purchaser since the vendor was residing in Pennsylvania, United Stated of America and was not available in the Republic of India for execution of the sale deed before the concerned Sub- registrar. The attorney holder not deriving any title or interest in the said property and attorney not creating any interest in favour of the attorney holder, it is only Clause (a) of Article 41 which should be applicable and not Clause (e) of Article 41 which requires the above condition precedent to be met.

7. Thus, he submits that the power of attorney having been executed for the sole purpose of executing a sale deed, the said purpose having been served and the sale deed being registered, the attorney holder not deriving any interest nor the attorney being coupled with interest the payment of stamp duty at Rs.100/- is proper and correct.

8. Learned AGA would support the order passed by contending that it is Clause (eb) of Article 41 which should be applicable, since the attorney holder has executed and presented the document for registra