SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, quash and/or rescind the order dated March 13, 2007 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and for other reliefs.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner inter alia is that on July 19, 1995 an agreement for sale was executed between Sk. Nazrul Islam and others as vendors and Akhtar Ahmed as purchaser for the purpose of executing a sale deed in respect of a certain property. The price fixed for the landed property was Rs. 40 lacs. It may be mentioned that Akhtar Ahmed was the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners and on his death his legal heirs have been brought on record. He made an application before the District Registrar, Purba Midnapore for presentation of the agreement before the Additional District Sub -Registrar, Contai -I for registration. The Additional District Sib -Registrar, Contai -I issued a letter to the District Registrar, Purba Midnapore requesting him to accept the application forwarded therewith. The District Registrar subsequently passed an order allowing the prayer of the petitioner for presenting the document in question for the purpose of admission to registration. Stamp duty was assessed on the valuation of the property and the same was paid through bank draft. The petitioner raised an objection to the valuation of the property made by the Additional District Sub -Registrar, Contai -I before the Inspector General of Registration. The said authority reduced the amount of valuation of the property in question and the total stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 8,59,624/ -. Thus, the deficit stamp duty to be paid was Rs. 5,39,574/ -. The petitioner claims that as per the notification dated October 31, 2006 the benefit of rebate of 40 per cent. on the stamp duty is admissible to those who submitted the document for registration after July, 2005. According to him, since the petitioner presented the document for the purpose of registration in the month of March, 2006 the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of rebate. He even a wrote a letter to the concerned authority expressing his willingness to pay the entire amount of stamp duty by December 31, 2006 for the purpose of registration of the document in question only to get the benefit of rebate of 40 per cent. of the stamp duty and he also pursued the same to get the benefit of 40 per cent rebate. But they declined to accept the said amount of stamp duty.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY he made an application before the Additional District Sub -Registrar, Contai -I on December 29, 2006 ventilating his grievances. But he declined to accept the stamp duty and consequently the petitioner has been deprived of the rebate of 40 per cent. by virtue of the government notification. According to the petitioner the authority had failed to appreciate that the government notification has been issued for extension of the benefit of rebate to persons who had presented their deeds before the concerned authority for the purpose of registration within July, 2006. According to him he has a right to get the benefit of rebate of 40 per cent. of the total stamp duty but due to arbitrary and whimsical act on the part of the concerned authority he has been deprived of that benefit.;