Judgment 1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the partition deed, Document No.B 219 of 1985 on the file of the first respondent to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his brother Batesa Sahib died in the year 1985 leaving behind him his wife Hawvanna Bibi and the petitioner. The petitioners brother had no issues. Under the provisions of the Mohammadan Law the petitioner entered into a partition with the wife of his brother and the partition deed dated 18.11.1985 was executed and the same was registered. The second respondent by his letter dated 6.3.1986 informed the petitioner that he has treated the partition deed as a conveyance and therefore impounded the document. According to him, the stamp duty ought to have been paid under Art.23 as a conveyance and the stamp duty of a sum of Rs.22,065 ought to have been affixed. Therefore, the second respondent demanded a sum of Rs.21,937. To the above letter, the petitioner replied on 16.5.1986. The second respondent without considering the reply, has ordered recovery of Rs.20,362. As against the said order, the petitioner seems to have presented a petition before the third respondent seeking a reference under Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act to refer to the High Court to consider whether the document is a partition deed or a conveyance. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent without considering the question whether the matter can be referred to the High Court, has rejected the petition. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10409 of 1987 for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus. This Court by order dated 18.3.1988 allowed the writ petition directing the third respondent to make the reference under Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. For the non-compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioner issued Advocates notice dated 15.9.1989 requesting the third respondent to carry out the order of this Court. As there was no action forthcoming on the part of the respondents, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the partition deed dated 18.11.1985. 3. As there was no action forthcoming on the part of the respondents, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the partition deed dated 18.11.1985. 3. In this case it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the respondents have got a doubt about the nature of the deed, there is a duty cast upon the authorities under Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Sec.56 to refer the matter to the High Court to be decided by not less than three Judges of the High Court to which it is referred. He has argued that the authorities have not acted upon to refer the matter under Sec.57 in spite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10409 of 1987. The petitioner has been forced to file this writ petition as the authorities have neither referred the matter to the High Court nor they have released the document. 4. Learned Government Advocate has stated that the records and instructions reveal that an action has been taken to refer the matter to the High Court in SR.No.43029 of 1988 dated 21.6.1988 and the same was not traceable either in the Registry or in their office. 5. The fact that the matter has been referred to this Court on 21.6.1988 in SR.No.43029 of 1988 is evident from the observations made by His Lordship Justice Srinivasan in W.M.P.No.8300 of 1990 in W.P.No.5314 of 1990. It has been observed by the learned Judge that the reference is not yet numbered as there has been delay in representation and rectification of certain defects pointed out by the office. The reference has been represented on 24.4.1992 by the then Additional Government Pleader. When the matter came up for hearing, effort has been made by both the counsel to trace out the papers from the Registry as well as from the Government Pleaders office and also from the concerned Department, but of no avail. The papers could not be traced out and they were not made available In view of the above, it has to be held that the matter has not been referred to be decided by the three Judges of the High Court as required under Sec.57 of the Act. The papers could not be traced out and they were not made available In view of the above, it has to be held that the matter has not been referred to be decided by the three Judges of the High Court as required under Sec.57 of the Act. The counsel has argued that under the provisions of Sec.56 of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector can exercise the powers under chapter IV and chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec.26 which is subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The reading of Sec.56 of the Indian Stamp Act is as follows: “Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority- (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec.26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. (2) If any Collector, acting under Sec.31, Sec.40 or Sec.41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision.“ So, as per Sec.56(2), if any Collector, acting under Sec.31, Sec.40 or Sec.41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. As per Sec.56(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. As per Sec.56(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. According to Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act, it reads as follows: “Statement of case by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to High Court - (1) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case referred to it under Sec.56, Sub-Sec (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its own opinion thereon,-- According to the provisions of Sec.57(1) of the Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case-referred to it under Sec.56, Sub-Sec(2) or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, in its own opinion thereon, if it arises in the Union Territory of Pondicherry to the High Court of Madras, and as per sub-Sec(2) of Sec.57 of the Act, every such case shall be decided by not less than three Judges of the High Court to which it is referred, and in case of difference, the opinion of the majority shall prevail. According to my view, Sec.57 of the Act must be read with the provisions of Sec.56 of the Act. According to Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.57 of the above Act, the duty is cast upon the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to refer the matter to the High Court. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras, while dealing with the case referred to under Sec.56(2) can state a case and refer it to the High Court only if it is an instrument, namely, one that is signed. In this case it is not disputed that the document submitted is an instrument and in such a case it has to refer it to the High Court. The above proposition of law is laid down in The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras v. State Bank of India, Madras (1976)2 MLJ. 279 :A.I.R. 1977 Mad. 16. In Banarasi Dass the Apex Court held that Sec.57(1) imposes a duty on the Authority to state a case when it raises a substantial question of law. The Apex Court also observed that it also must now be taken as settled that, that duty is not affected by the question whether the case is pending before the Authority or not. In Banarasi Dass the Apex Court held that Sec.57(1) imposes a duty on the Authority to state a case when it raises a substantial question of law. The Apex Court also observed that it also must now be taken as settled that, that duty is not affected by the question whether the case is pending before the Authority or not. The principle underlying the decision is that Sec.57 affords a remedy to the citizen to have his case referred to the High Court against an order of a Revenue Authority imposing stamp duty and penalty provided the application involves a substantial question of law and imposes a corresponding obligation on the authority to refer it to the High Court for its opinion. Such a right cannot be construed to depend upon any subsidiary circumstance such as the pendency of the case before the Authority. In view of the above decision, it can be said that as per Sec.57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, the duty is cast upon the authorities to refer the matter to the High Court. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 218:(1950)2 MLJ. 564:1950 S.C.J. 444, that the power to make a reference under Sec.57 of the Act is not only for the appellant. It is coupled with a duty cast on him, as a public officer to do the right thing and when an important and instricate question of law in respect of the construction of a document arises, as a public servant it is his duty to make the reference. If he omits to do so it is within the power of the court to direct him to discharge that duty and make a reference to the court. It has also been interpreted that the word “may” in Sec.57(1) cannot be construed as merely permissive. When the matter involves questions of law, depending upon the construction to be put on the deed and two or more constructions are not to be rules out and when the rights of the party are vitally affected, the authority concerned shall not decline to refer the matter to the High Court under Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act A.I.R. 1985 N.O.C. 25 (Mad):A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 218. Basing on the above, it has to be said that the second respondent has failed in its duty to refer the matter to the High Court under the provisions of Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act. In such a case, basing on the above judgments it can be held that the respondents have violated the provisions under Sec.57 of the Act in not referring the matter to the High Court. In the above circumstances, it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the third respondent to take action as per the provisions of Sec.57 of the Indian Stamp Act within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.