ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings dated 05.10.2012, bearing reference number 3691/C2/2010, pertaining to the disposal of the representation given by the petitioner on 25.01.2010 for refund of excess stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.25,32,928/- (Rupees Twenty five lakh thirty two thousand nine hundred and twenty eight only) paid for the document registered as number 5179 of 2009 before the Sub-Registrar of Vadavalli and consequently quash the order of the respondent directing a refund of a sum of Rs.18,71,903/- (Rupees Eighteen lakh seventy one thousand nine hundred and three only) to the Petitioner herein.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his father, grandfather and brother constituted a Partnership Firm in the name and style of 'M/s Sri Investments'. The property comprised in S.F.No.54/1A1 ad-measuring to an extent of 1 acre was purchased in the name of the said Partnership Firm by the sale deed dated 09.03.2009 registered vide Document No.791 of 2009. Thereafter, by a Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dated 18.09.2009 the Partnership Firm was dissolved and agreed to partition the property purchased by the Partnership Firm. Accordingly, the Partition Deed was entered into between them and in respect of one share of the subject property was allotted to the petitioner's father and other share was allotted to the petitioner, his brother and their grandfather. The said Partition Deed was presented for registration with the Sub-Registrar, Vadavalli, on payment of stamp duty as prescribed under Schedule-I, Article 46-B(ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) viz., a sum of Rs.10,000/- for each share of the property. However, it was kept pending as Pending Document No.95 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Vadavalli and made reference to the District Registrar, Coimbatore, seeking his assistance to adjudicate/access the stamp duty on the said Partition Deed.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.25397 of 2009 before this Court for a direction, directing the Sub-Registrar, Vadavalli to register the partition deed dated 27.10.2009 bearing Pending Document No.95 of 2009 and release the same to the petitioner. By an order dated 23.12.2009 this Court directed the Sub- Registrar, Vadavalli to register and release the same on payment of stamp duty as claimed by the Sub-Registrar, Vadavalli. As directed by this Court, the petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.22,52,823/- and a sum of Rs.2,80,105/- for registration fee under protest and on receipt of the same, the Sub- Registrar, Vadavalli registered the partition deed dated 27.10.2009 vide Document No.5179 of 2009 and released the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 25.01.2010 for refund of excess stamp duty and registration fee paid by the petitioner. However, it was not considered and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition in W.P.No.8086 of 2010 before this Court. By an order dated

09.07.2010, this Court directed the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 25.01.2010 made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Finally, it was partly rejected the claim of the petitioner in so far as the part of the stamp duty and registration fee which were paid by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the definition of Family as stated in Schedule-I, Article 58 does not include the the word Grand Father. The respondent failed to give any reason as to why the word Grand Child is being used in the definition of Family as stated in Schedule-I, Article 58 and the respondent has not given any explanation as to why the hierarchy in the definition of family is given as Father, Mother, Son, Daughter and Grand Ch