ORDER : Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.15/2021, dated 23.07.2021 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to delete the entry made by him to encumbrance relating to the properties covered to the schedule to partition deed dated 08.06.2020 registered as Document No. 3300/2020 on the file. 1. Challenging the order of the respondent dated 23.07.2021, this Writ Petition is filed with a consequential direction to the respondent to delete the entry made by him with regard to encumbrance relating to the properties covered to the schedule to partition deed dated 08.06.2020 registered as Document No. 3300/2020. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his grandfather Lakshmanan Chettiar had four sons, namely, Pandian, Vairavan, Saravanan and Nachiappan. They were living together as a joint family and doing joint family business, out of which, they had purchased several properties. After their death, the properties devolved upon all the legal heirs and they had partitioned the properties, for which, a partition deed has also been registered on 08.06.2020 and the document has also been released. The petitioner is the son of Pandian. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent, dated 23.07.2021, claiming deficit stamp duty, which is impugned herein. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the following three grounds: (i) after the document had been registered and released, the District Registrar has become functus officio; (ii) the partition deed had been performed between the family members i.e. wife, children and grandchildren of Lakshmanan Chettiar and (iii) the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as there is no proceedings initiated under Section 33-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, would submit that the petitioner has not disclosed the great grandchildren of Lakshmanan Chettiar and his grandmother Saroja, who were also parties to the partition deed dated 08.06.2020. During audit objection, it was found that the partition had been performed between non-family members i.e. great grandchildren. During audit objection, it was found that the partition had been performed between non-family members i.e. great grandchildren. Since the great grandchildren does not come within the definition of ‘Family’ as given in Schedule I Article 58 of Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Article 58’) and the stamp duty and registration fees had been wrongly calculated, the impugned notice has been issued. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. As far as the first contention of the petitioner that the registering authority become functus officio, after releasing the document, is concerned, that submission has no ground to stand for the simple reason that even after registration, on proper enquiry, stamp duty can be collected as provided under Section 33-A of the Act. Therefore, the first contention cannot be countenanced. 7. As far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the partition had been performed between the members of the joint family, is concerned, it is relevant to note that as per the Explanation in Article 58, the word ‘family’ means father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grand child, brother or sister. It is not included uncle. 8. It is relevant to note that since the Stamp Act is being physical legislation, the definition brought under the Act by way of amendment should be strictly taken into account. However, in the present case, what was presented is partition deed among the children of one of the co-owners and existing co-owners. The existing co-owner, who is the uncle of other persons, also should be treated as a family, only for the purpose of executing the documents in respect of joint family properties. 9. In this regard, a clarification is also issued by the Inspector General of Registration, vide proceedings Ref. No. 5450/C2/2005, dated 11.03.2005, wherein it is stated that in the event of any death of daughter or son, their children are also included as family members. Therefore, similar benefit extended to other family members mentioned in the Explanation to Article 58, is to be given to them also. 10. No. 5450/C2/2005, dated 11.03.2005, wherein it is stated that in the event of any death of daughter or son, their children are also included as family members. Therefore, similar benefit extended to other family members mentioned in the Explanation to Article 58, is to be given to them also. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that though one of the co-owners is considered as uncle of other children of other co-owners, the documents are not being registered by the registering authority, citing the Explanation. Therefore, it is the high time for the Government to bring necessary amendment in this regard in the Explanation to Article 58 for more clarity. 11. As far as the third contention that there is no proceedings initiated under Section 33-A of the Act is concerned, it is relevant to extract Section 33-A of the Act herein: “33-A. Recovery of deficit stamp duty: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 33 or in any other provisions of this Act, if, after the registration of any instrument under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), it is found that the proper stamp duty payable under this Act in respect of such instrument has not been paid or has been insufficiently paid, such duty or the deficit, as the case may be, may, on a certificate from the Registrar of the district under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) be recovered from the person liable to pay the duty, as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that no such certificate shall be granted unless due inquiry is made and such person is given an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that no such inquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument.” 12. It is to be noted that as per Section 33-A of the Act, before recovery of such deficit stamp, proper certificate ought to have been issued by the District Registrar in this regard and for issuing certificate, an enquiry ought to have been conducted and proper opportunity of hearing should have been given to the parties concerned and such enquiry ought to have been commenced within a period of three years from the date of registration of the document. Therefore, in the absence of any certificate by the District Registrar as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Act and opportunity of hearing before issuance of certificate, mere issuance of notice for recovery only based on the audit objections cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 13. In the present case, none of the procedures have been followed and the impugned notice has been issued only based on the audit objections. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 23.07.2021 issued by the respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law, accordingly, it is quashed. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.