JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay on the part of the respondents in taking steps for refund of the excess stamp duty and registration fee paid by him pursuant to execution of registration of Ext.P2 sale deed. 2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows : “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to grant the benefits of Ext.P4 appeal order to the petitioners by refunding the excess stamp duty and registration charges paid on Ext.P2 & P3 in tune with Ext.P1 judgment. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.” 3. Heard Sri. Avaneesh Koyikkara, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhaya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner had purchased property coming to an extent of 3.35 Ares of land comprised in Block 12, Survey No. 281/3 of Angamaly Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District. At the time of execution of registration of Ext.P2 sale deed No. 950/2015 dated 20.3.2015, the notified fair value for the above said property was fixed at Rs.14 lakhs per Are. The petitioner's vendor had complained that the said fair value so notified, is exorbitantly high and unrealistic and without taking into account the ground realities and the market value of the above said property etc and therefore, preferred statutory appeal before the rd respondent District Collector under the provisions contained in Section 28A(4) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner's vendor prior to the execution of Ext.P2 sale deed. Since there was delay on the part of the appellate authority to render a decision on the said appeal, the petitioner's vendor was constrained to file a Writ Petition (Civil) as W.P.(C) No. 29313/2014 before this Court. This Court had finally disposed of W.P. (C)No.29313/2014 as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.11.2014 by directing the 5th respondent therein (Sub Registrar, Angamaly), to register the document executed by the vendor in respect of the said property under protest and in accordance with the notified fair value fixed in respect of that property. This Court had finally disposed of W.P. (C)No.29313/2014 as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.11.2014 by directing the 5th respondent therein (Sub Registrar, Angamaly), to register the document executed by the vendor in respect of the said property under protest and in accordance with the notified fair value fixed in respect of that property. But, it was made clear that the registration of the said document based on the impugned fair value will be subject to the final disposal of the appeal preferred by the party against the fixation of the fair value. It was further ordered by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment that if he said appeal is disposed of by the appellate authority by reducing the present impugned fair value, then necessarily the competent authority concerned shall refund the excess stamp duty and registration fee paid on the document to the person who paid such excess amounts, etc. This Court had also directed the District Collector, Ernakulam, being the appellate authority to render a considered decision on the appeal (Ext.P1 therein), after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the vendor (the petitioner therein) within two months etc. Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.11.2014 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.29313/2014 reads as follows : “This writ petition is filed by vendor of a document in respect of the property situated in Survey No. 281/3 in Block No. 12 of Angamaly Village in Ernakulam District. Petitioner has filed a fair value appeal before the 3rd respondent in the matter relating to fixation of fair value for the aforementioned plot. Petitioner wants to dispose the property. The limited request of the petitioner is that registering authority have to register the document under protest subject to final fixation of fair value of the property in the appeal. 2. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the 5th respondent to register the document executed by the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned property under protest in accordance with the fair value fixed in respect of the above property. However, it is made clear that registration of the document based on fair value is subject to final disposal of the appeal relating to the property by the competent authority. However, it is made clear that registration of the document based on fair value is subject to final disposal of the appeal relating to the property by the competent authority. If the appeal is disposed of reducing the present fair value, necessarily, competent authority shall refund the excess stamp duty paid on the document to the person who paid the stamp duty and corresponding registration fee. In view of pendency of Ext.P1 appeal before the District Collector, Ernakulam, there shall be a direction to the District Collector, to dispose of the appeal after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5. Thereupon the petitioner's vendor had duly executed the sale deed and present the same for registration upon which the same was registered as per Ext.P2 sale deed No.950/2015 dated 20.3.2015, and it is common ground that then applicable stamp duty and registration fee with reference to the then existing impugned fair value was duly remitted. Ext.P3 is the chalan evidencing payment of stamp duty and registration fee in respect of Ext.P2 sale deed. 6. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent District Collector had disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner's vendor impugning the fair value, as per Ext.P4 order dated 21.5.2015, whereby the appellate authority had reduced the said impugned fair value from Rs.14 lakhs per Are to Rs.6 lakhs per Are. Aggrieved thereby, the party had preferred a review petition against Ext.P4 order which was ultimately dismissed by the 3rd respondent District Collector on 8.1.2016. The revised and reduced fair value pursuant to Ext.P4 appellate order was duly published as notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 23.6.2015 as discernible from Ext.P5 Gazette notification. 7. According to the petitioner, he was working abroad and as Ext.P1 judgment was secured at the instance of his vendor, he could not properly co-ordinate action for filing the requisite application for seeking refund of the excess stamp duty and registration fee paid on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment and ultimately, he could file the application in that regard only on 2.9.2017 as per Ext.P6, whereby he sought refund of the stamp duty and the registration charges paid. In Ext.P6, it is stated that the excess stamp duty and registration fee altogether paid on account of Ext.P2 sale deed comes to about Rs.2,41,200/-. In Ext.P6, it is stated that the excess stamp duty and registration fee altogether paid on account of Ext.P2 sale deed comes to about Rs.2,41,200/-. Since there was delay on the part of the 2nd respondent, the Inspector General of Registration, in passing orders for refund pursuant to Ext.P6 application dated 2.9.2017, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers. 8. The 2nd respondent Inspector General of Registration has now filed a counter affidavit dated 29.9.2018. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that Ext.P6 application dated 2.9.2017 for refund of excess stamp duty and registration charges was received by the 2nd respondent only on 11.10.2017. Further it is stated that Rule 207 of the Kerala Registration Rules stipulates a time limit of six months from the date of levy of such fees or fine for considering the application for refund. It is also contended that, though Ext.P4 appellate decision was rendered on 21.5.2015, and the review petition was dismissed on 8.1.2016, the time taken for disposing of the review petition cannot be reckoned for calculating the six months period as envisaged in Rule 207 etc. Thereupon the 2nd respondent has sought a clarification from the competent authority of the 1st respondent State Government in the matter of request made by the petitioner for refund of the excess stamp duty and the registration fee and the matter has, thus, been referred to the 1st respondent as per Ext.R2 (a) letter dated 25.1.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent etc., and that the decision of the 1st respondent is awaited in the matter. 9. Chapter XXV of the Kerala Registration Rules framed under the enabling provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 deals with the fees and the fines and Rule 207 speaks about refund in certain contingencies. Rule 207 of the Kerala Registration Rules provides as follows : “207. It is for the Registering Officer, who is responsible for levying the fee, to determine in the first instance what fee should be paid. After it has been paid the presenting party may, if he is dissatisfied, apply to the Inspector-General of registration who shall if he thinks there has been an overcharge order the Sub-Registrar to refund any excess. It is for the Registering Officer, who is responsible for levying the fee, to determine in the first instance what fee should be paid. After it has been paid the presenting party may, if he is dissatisfied, apply to the Inspector-General of registration who shall if he thinks there has been an overcharge order the Sub-Registrar to refund any excess. The Inspector-General shall not take any notice of any such application, if presented after six months from the date of the levy of fees or fine.” 10. A reading of Rule 207 would indicate that the factual contingency envisaged in that Rule is only when the applicant has a case that the registration fee demanded by the original registering officer is against the Rules and that actually a lower registration fee alone is payable and after payment of such registration fee, the party on being dissatisfied, applies to the Inspector General of Registration who may consider the orders for refund and it is only in such cases, it is stipulated that the Inspector General of Registration shall not take any notice or plea in respect of any such application for refund, if the same is presented after six months from the date of the levy of fees or fine. (emphasis supplied). In the instant case, the said contingency conceived in Rule 207 of the Kerala Registration Rule does not arise at all. The petitioner’s vendor had not disputed that the then existing impugned fair value notification for the property in question was for a value to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs per Are. But, his contention was that the fixation of the fair value in that fair value notification was arbitrarily high and should be reduced by the appellate authority and for that purpose, he preferred a statutory appeal in terms of Section 28A(4) of the Act. This Court had then directed the registration of the sale deed based on the then existing impugned fair value without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner’s vendor to agitate on merits the contention in the appeal under Section 28A(4) and that in case the appellate authority decides to reduce the fair value, then the authority concerned shall refund the excess registration fee and the stamp duty that have been so paid etc. Therefore, the factual scenario covered in the instant case will not come within the pigeon hole of the Rule 207 of the Kerala Registration Rules. The respondents have not been able to point out any other provisions in the Kerala Registration Rules or the Registration Act which deals with the contingency of refund of registration fee as the one in the instant one. Therefore, obviously, it is only to be held that none of the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder envisage the situation for refund as the one conceived and directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. 11. As regards the issue relating to refund of the excess stamp duty, the learned Government Pleader has pointed out the provision contained in Section 44 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 as well as the corresponding provisions in Section 34 and 39, which are mentioned in sub section 2 of Section 44. Section 44, Sections 34 and 39 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 provides as follows : “44. Power of Government or other specified authority to refund penalty or excess duty in certain cases.-(1) Where any penalty is paid under Section 34 or Section 39, the Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf may, upon application in writing made within one year from the date of payment, refund such penalty wholly or in part. (2) Where, in the opinion of the Government or such other authority specified under sub-section (1), stamp duty in excess of that which is legally chargeable has been charged and paid under Section 34 or Section 39, the Government or such authority may, upon application in writing made within three months of the order charging the same, refund the excess.” 34. Instrument not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc.-No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that- (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty paise or less than twenty paise shall, shall subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the cases of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of ten rupees or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds ten rupee of a sum equal to twenty times such duty or portion; (b) any such instrument, when presented to a Registering Officer for registration, shall be registered, if the party agrees to pay the duty and penalty due thereon as decided by the Registering Officer and pays the same within seven days from the date of such decision. (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to b e duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Section 32 or any other provision of this Act.” “39. Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded.-(1) When the Collector impounds any instrument under Section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under sub-section (2) of Section 37, not being an instrument chargeable with a duty or twenty paise or less, he shall adopt the following procedure:- (a) if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty, he shall certify by endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped or that it is not so chargeable, as the case may be; (b) if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of ten rupees or if he thinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof whether such amount exceeds or falls short of ten rupees : Provided that, when such instrument has been impounded only because it has been written in contravention of Section 13 or Section 14, the collector may, if he thinks fit, remit the whole penalty prescribed by this section. (2) Every certificate under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. (3) Where an instrument has been sent to the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 38, the Collector shall, when he has deal with it as provided by this section, return it to the impounding officer.” 12. On a careful perusal of the provisions contained in Sections 44, 34 and 39, more particularly, the provisions contained in Section 44, the learned Government Pleader would point out that the policy of the legislature is that the application for refund of excess stamp duty in the case of penalty should be sought for within a period of one year from the date of payment as envisaged in Section 44 (1) and that in the case of stamp duty paid in excess of that which is legally chargeable, the period is three months. 13. From a reading of sub section (1) of Section 44, it can be seen that the said provision cannot be pressed into service as it contemplates only scenarios, where refund of excess stamp duty is sought in cases of penalty. 13. From a reading of sub section (1) of Section 44, it can be seen that the said provision cannot be pressed into service as it contemplates only scenarios, where refund of excess stamp duty is sought in cases of penalty. So, obviously, Section 44(1) will not come into play. Sub Section (2) of Section 44 could be pressed into service only in a case where stamp duty is paid in excess of that which is legally chargeable and only in a case where stamp duty in excess of that which is legally chargeable has been charged and paid under Section 34 or 39, then the Government or such authority may, upon application in writing, consider plea of refund provided it is within a period of three months from the date of the order charging the same. From a reading of the provisions contained in Sub section (2) of Section 44 as well as the Section 34 and 39 more particularly clause (d) of the proviso to Section 34 as well as the proviso to clause 39(1), it can be seen that, those statutory provisions are all dealing with scenarios where the stamp duty in excess of that which is legally chargeable has been charged and paid either under Section 34 or 39 and then the party concerned is seeking refund in which case, such application for refund should be made within three months form the order charging the same. In the instant case, nobody has a case that the stamp duty that was actually charged at the time of execution of Ext.P2 sale deed was demanded and charged than what was in excess of that which was legally chargeable, in relation to Sections 34, 39 etc. On the other hand, all parties including the registration officials, the petitioner’s vendor and the petitioner were in unison that the stamp duty and the registration fee paid was charged on the basis of then prevailing fair value. So, obviously the contingencies covered by under Section 44(2) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The respondents have not been able to point out to this Court any other provisions either in the Kerala Stamp Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which would envisage a scenario of refund as in the instant case. 14. So, obviously the contingencies covered by under Section 44(2) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The respondents have not been able to point out to this Court any other provisions either in the Kerala Stamp Act or the Rules framed thereunder, which would envisage a scenario of refund as in the instant case. 14. Therefore, it is clear that the Registration Act or the Rules framed thereunder or the Kerala Stamp Act or the Rules framed thereunder, have made any provisions which could deal with the factual scenario covered in the instant case, wherein directions have been issued as per Ext.P1 judgment. Therefore, it is clear like the day light that no statutory provision occurring either in the plenary provision of law or in a subordinate legislative Rule, is there a time limit fixed for seeking refund of excess stamp duty as in the instant case. Since that is a position, there is no question of any statutory time bar in seeking refund, in the instant case. Since no statutory time bar could be pressed into service in the instant case, this Court need not examine the issue as to whether there are any express provision in the Act and Rules provided for condonation of delay, in that regard. Since statutory time bar does not come into play in the instant case, the mere aspect that there are no provisions in the Act or the Rule providing for condonation of delay in seeking refund is also not relevant or material, in the facts of this case. The condonation of delay in seeking refund would be relevant only if any of the provisions contained in the Act or Rules had expressly envisaged scenario as in the instant case fixing a time limit in the matter of request for refund of excess stamp duty or registration fee. 15. Even if there are no provisions in the Statute book envisage refund of stamp duty and fee paid as in the instant case, this Court in exercise of the constitutional and plenary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could pass orders for such refund, as in Ext.P-1 judgment. The jurisprudential foundation for such powers is on the premise that the State authority cannot enjoy the benefits of unjust enrichment. The jurisprudential foundation for such powers is on the premise that the State authority cannot enjoy the benefits of unjust enrichment. Therefore, without making the parties to wait indefinitely till the finalisation of the fair value appellate proceedings and without prejudice to the contentions on both sides, this Court is well justified to pass orders as in Ext.P-1 judgment directing registration of the deed on the basis of payment of the stamp duty and registration fee reckoned as per the then prevailing fair value and to order for refund, if ultimately the fair value appeal is allowed later. 16. Hence, it is abundantly clear that there is no legal prohibition or statutory time bar in the claim made by the petitioner for seeking refund of the excess stamp duty and registration fee. This Court had clearly stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment that the parties in this case should suffer the impugned fair value for the time being while executing and registering the sale deed on the basis of then prevailing impugned fair value on condition that without prejudice to their rights in the statutory fair value appeal and that in case the appellate authority decides to lower or reduce the fair value, then the party concerned will be entitled to seek refund of any such excess registration fee and stamp duty so remitted. The respondents are bound by Ext.P1 judgment, which has become final and conclusive. 17. In the instant case, Ext.P5 revised fair value consequent to Ext.P4 appellate order dated 21.5.2015 published in Kerala Gazette on 23.6.2015. The review petition filed by the petitioner’s vendor was dismissed on 8.1.2016. The petitioner had filed Ext.P6 application for refund only on 2.9.2017, which is received by the 2nd respondent on 11.10.2017. From a reading of Rule 207 of the Registration Rules, it is seen that a time limit of six months is stipulated therein and from a reading of Section 44(2), it is clear that the time limit stipulated for refund is three months. Though the said statutory time limits in Rule 207 and Section 44(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act will not statutorily apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the said time parameter can be taken as a reasonable guideline reflected by the legislative policy in the matter of even refunds, in the instant case, which are not covered by the statutory provisions. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that merely because no statutory provisions are envisaged for situations like in the instant case, it does not mean that the party like the petitioner can indefinitely wait and choose to make an application for refund at a much later time. If such a view is taken by the Court, it will lead to administrative inconvenience and difficulties and even if the application is filed after inordinate long period, it will be lead to unnecessary hardship and difficulties to the administration. Therefore, taking a cue from the above said legislative guideline and policy, this Court is of the view that ordinarily the party like the petitioner ought to have filed the application for refund within a reasonable time limit. In the instant case, the petitioner would urge that he was working abroad and as Ext.P1 judgment secured at the instance of his vendor, he could not take effective and coordinated action to ensure the submission of an application of refund without further delay, after getting copies of Exts.P-1, P-4, P-5 and the order in the review petition, etc. Taking note of all these circumstances, this Court is of the view that sufficient directions may be issued so as to protect the interest of both sides and so that the long time taken by the petitioner to submit his application is not encouraged. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 will ensure that orders are passed in Ext.P6 application for refund made by the petitioner without much delay, after getting report from the 5th respondent Sub Registrar as to the stamp duty and the registration fee actually paid at the time of execution and registration of Ext.P2 sale deed and whether the figures in Ext.P3 are correct and as to how the fair value and the stamp duty was so paid at the time of execution of Ext.P2 sale deed with reference to the details of the impugned fair value at that time and also the details of the reduced fair value consequent to Ext.P4 appellate decision etc. Thereafter, the said competent authority among the respondents, more particularly, the 2nd respondent will ensure that orders are passed granting refund to the petitioner for excess registration fee and stamp duty so paid after withholding 1% thereof. Thereafter, the said competent authority among the respondents, more particularly, the 2nd respondent will ensure that orders are passed granting refund to the petitioner for excess registration fee and stamp duty so paid after withholding 1% thereof. In other words, in view of the delay on the part of the petitioner, the refund may be allowed only to the tune of 99% of the excess registration fee and stamp duty paid at the time of execution of Ext.P2. Orders should be passed by the competent authority among respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.