Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the second respondent to release the sale deed registered vide No.2073/2010 to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had purchased the property measuring 3404 sq. ft. land by registered Sale Deed in the year 2010, which was registered in the office of the second respondent. The total sale consideration was Rs.3,40,400/-, of which, the requisite stamp duty was levied. The Sale Deed was registered by Registration No.2073 of 2010. After the document was registered by Duty Registrar, the Sub-Registrar referred it for determination as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. A notice under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, was also issued to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that during pendency of the adjudication, it will not open to the respondents to retain the document. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the second respondent to release the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner. 4. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of B.Rajappa and another Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) reported in [2002 (3) CTC 544], wherein, this Court was pleased to lay down as under:- "13. In the light of the said provisions, the learned Advocate General had to necessarily admit that the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to retain the documents once it has been registered. Even assuming that there is scope for reference in respect of alleged under-valuation, the registering authority has no authority to retain the documents and this is also clear from the provisions of Sections 52, 59 and 60 of The Indian Registration Act. 14. In the circumstances, while following the above pronouncements, these two writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Registering Authority, namely, the second respondent in W.P.No.22998 of 2001 and the sole respondent in W.P.No.8637 of 2002, to return the original sale deed as registered with necessary endorsements within ten days from the date of communication of this order or a production of a copy of the same by the respective petitioner. 15. 15. While appreciating the anxiety expressed on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General, this Court directs that:- "i) It is open to the Registering Authority to affix a seal, while releasing the original deed or conveyance or any other document indicating that a reference is pending under Section 47-A with respect to under-valuation and assessment of Stamp Duty payable, as and when the proceedings reach finality, the same shall be intimated to the person who is liable to pay stamp duty demanding payment of deficit Stamp Duty payable on the instrument. ii) The Registrar to make corresponding entries under Sections 54, 55 of the Registration Act, 1908, in the Register of indexes as to pendency of proceedings under Section 47-A. iii) On completion of adjudication as to the under-valuation by the competent authority as well as appeal or revision, if any, thereof, and depending upon the ultimate decision, the said authorities to recover deficit stamp duty according to law. iv) Till such proceeding reaches finality and deficit is paid, there will be a charge for the deficit stamp duty, which is the subject matter of transfer or conveyance. v) On payment of deficit stamp duty, if any payable, the Registrar may once again, on production of the original deed of transfer, make appropriate entry and recording the additional stamp duty paid and release of charge and also make consequential entries in the registers/indexes maintained under Sections 54, 55, etc., of The Registration Act." 16. Before parting with the case, with heavy heart, this Court has to point out that neither the State Government nor the Chief Controlling Authority had intimated about the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Registrars have been flouting the dicta laid down by this Court with impunity. Such violations are per se contemptuous. This Court pointed out this to the learned Advocate General, who in turn relied upon certain circulars issued, but they are not towards compliance with pronouncements and in conformity with the Judgment of the Division Bench. However, this Court takes a lenient view in this respect, in view of the fair stand taken and explanation offered by the learned Advocate General." 5. In view of the settled law referred to above, this Writ Petition is allowed and second respondent is directed to release the sale deed registered as document No.2073/2010 to the petitioner. 6. However, this Court takes a lenient view in this respect, in view of the fair stand taken and explanation offered by the learned Advocate General." 5. In view of the settled law referred to above, this Writ Petition is allowed and second respondent is directed to release the sale deed registered as document No.2073/2010 to the petitioner. 6. However, to safeguard the interest of the State, it will be open to the Registering Authority to affix a seal, while releasing the original document, indicating therein that a reference with respect to under-valuation of the stamp duty is pending and that the amount found due would be a charge on the property. 7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.