JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. having its registered office at Modinagar. It arranged for a grant of loan of Rs. 41.14 lacs from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation of India Ltd. New Delhi. For receiving this loan the petitioner executed a mortgage deed. The deed was compulsorily registrable and was accordingly presented for registration before the Chief Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad on June 25, 1979. It also submitted an application along with the do 1 stating that it may be informed of the exact amount to be deposited, as according to it. a fee of Rs. 100/- only was legally chargeable as registration-fee with respect to that deed. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the deed had not been registered whereupon the petitioner filed another application before the District Registrar stating that more than two weeks had passed and that the company was suffering huge loss on account of the non-registration of the document. It was accordingly prayed that a registration-fee of Rs. 100/- be charged on the document and that a letter to that effect be issued so that the company could apply to the Chief Sub-Registrar to register the document on commission at Modinagar. This prayer was disallowed by the District Registrar by his order dated July 9, 1979 in which the Registrar stated that the company may deposit a sum of Rs. 41,151/- towards the registration fee, under protest, so that the matter may be referred for adjudication of the Inspector General of Stamps, U.P. Allahabad. It is apparent that the.order asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 41,151/- towards the registration-fee was founded on the notification dated March 31, 1976 issued under the Registration Act. A true copy of the relevant portion of that notification hash en annexed as Annexure 5 to the petition According think the registration-fee prescribed for documents the value or consideration of which is over Rs. 1,000/- is as Rs. 21/- for the first Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 5/- for every Rs. 500/- or part thereof in excess of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. 1,000/- is as Rs. 21/- for the first Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 5/- for every Rs. 500/- or part thereof in excess of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned orders as well as of the notification dated March 31, 1976 on the ground that the amount realised by the Revenue by way of registration-fee goes towards the general revenue of the State inasmuch as no service is being rendered commensurate with the fee prescribed under the said notification, the imposition must be held to be ultra vires being without the authority of law. 3. The learned counsel is right. The contention is fully supported by a direct decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 76 of 1971 connected with Special Appeal No. 68 of 1971, as true of which has been annexed to the petition as Annexure 7 to the petition. Incidentally those special appeals were filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the case of the petitioner company itself which had challenged the same notification. The learned single Judge had upheld the challenge and allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and declared the said notification of 1976 ultra vires. The decision of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated August 30. 1978 in the two special appeals mentioned. The learned Judges observed the element of quid pro quo was totally absent. The fee realised by the Revenue as registration-fee constituted part of the General Revenue of the State. It was not kept in any separate account so as to be spent on providing service or expenditure by the Registration Department. The imposition was, therefore, held to be unconstitutional. 4. Keeping this dictum in mind, the court had repeatedly asked the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit to indicate whether the amount realised by the State by way of registration-fee was going towards General Revenue or was being spent exclusively over the upkeep of the Registration Department, No affidavits have, however, been filed by the State. That being so, the position remains unchanged since this Court last declared the notification of 1976 ultra vires and inoperative. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that since then the notification of 1976 has been amended by means of another notification dated July 18, 1979 (Annexure Ca-1) a copy of that notification. That being so, the position remains unchanged since this Court last declared the notification of 1976 ultra vires and inoperative. 5. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that since then the notification of 1976 has been amended by means of another notification dated July 18, 1979 (Annexure Ca-1) a copy of that notification. We have perused this notification and find that no material change has been introduced so as to render the decision of this Court in the Special Appeals mentioned above, to review or as inapplicable to the present situation. All that has been done under the notification of 1979 is that the maximum fee chargeable under Articles 1 and 3 of the Stamp Act has been enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 250/-. The vice from which the earlier notification of 1976 suffered. therefore, continued The direction for the deposit of Rs. 41.151/- from the petitioner was thus plainly unsustainable and without jurisdiction. The maximum fee chargeable on the document submitted by the petitioner for the registration would. therefore, be Rs. 250/-. 6. In the result. the petition succeeds and is allowed: The District Registrar, Ghaziabad, is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the District Registrar dated July 9, 1979. The District Registrar shall, however, be free to deduct a sum of Rs. 250/- out of that amount which is legally the amount of fee chargeable on the document. 7. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs from the respondents.