- (1.) THE petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by the first and second respondents has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders vide Annexure-E , dated 21-7-1995 and the order dated 20-5-1995 respectively. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to return the sale deed dated 3-1-1994 after its registration under the Provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, by holding that the stamp duty paid on the instrument is sufficient as the same is in conformity with the Provisions of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957 and Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, urging various facts and legal contentions.
(2.) THE various facts and legal contentions urged in this writ petition by the petitioner need not be adverted to in this order for the reason that reference of conveyance deed made by the third respondent to the second respondent in exercise of Section 33 of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957 without authority of law and competency, on the basis of the refer- ence made by him, the second respondent has passed the impugned order at Annexure-C directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty payable under article 20 (1) to the schedule of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957 of additional court fee stamp duty of Rs. 43,177/- and under Section 39 (l) (b) a penalty of Rs. 5/- on the said amount. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order; has filed an appeal under the Provisions of the Act, 1957 read with relevant rules before the first respondent and the same is dismissed by him holding that the appeal is not maintainable in law against the order passed by the second respondent.
(3.) THE impugned order passed by the first respondent is sought to be justified by the government pleader appearing on behalf of respondents by filing a detailed counter-statement. I have perused the same at paragraph of the counter-statement. It is noticed that third respondent was empowered to refuse to register the document as it is not sufficiently stamped by the petitioner as per the relevant article to the schedule of the Provisions of the act 1957 holding that, it is not the first registration of the plot. Therefore, it ig urged on behalf of the third respondent that the third respondent has made reference to the second respondent for examining the sufficiency of the stamp duty paid on the document, he has answered the reference against the petitioner, directing him to pay sufficient stamp duty on the instrument under the Provisions of the act presented before the third respondent for its registration as he has not sufficiently paid the stamp duty. This order was challenged before the first respondent under the Provisions of Section 45-a (5) of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957, the first respondent passed an order holding that the appeal is not maintainable, this order is also impugned in this order.;