ORDER
R. Basant, J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28th March, 2001 in C.M. A. 12 of 1998 passed under Section 45(B) of the Kerala Stamp Act the revision petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. By the impugned judgment the learned District Judge, Alappuzha had dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45(B)(4) of the Kerala Stamp Act.
2. Notice was given to learned Government Pleader. Arguments have been heard.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner does not want to and had never requested that the proceedings against him under
Section 45(B) may be compounded under the scheme for composition. Notice, dated 26.12.1997 produced alongwith the Memorandum of revision only informs the revision petitioner that he can take advantage of the scheme for compounding. The revision petitioner was never willing and is not inclined to take advantage of the scheme for composition. In these circumstances the learned District Judge should not have dismissed the appeal but should have proceeded to consider his appeal on merits and allowed the same it is submitted.
4. I am in total agreement with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Proceedings for undervaluation of instruments initiated under Section 45(B) of the Kerala Stamp Act must be disposed of by the Registrar/notified Collector as stipulated under the statutory provision. It is true that the Government in its anxiety to dispose of a large number of proceedings under Section 45(B) pending before the various authorities in the State had chosen to promulgage a scheme for composition. It is open to the appellant/revision petitioner to take advantage of the scheme or not. There is no provision to compel him to pay any amount under the scheme unless he wants to seek composition under the scheme. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the learned District Judge did not properly dispose of the appeal under Section 45B. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the scheme for composition cannot be imposed on the appellant against his desire and volition. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned District Judge must have disposed of C.M.A. 12 of 1998 with the observation that the order dated 26.12.1997 does not give the authorities any right to recover any amount from the revision petitioner.
5. I must hasten to observe that a careful reading of the order dated 26.12.1997 produced alongwith this Civil Revision petition as Annexure IV does make it clear that it was only an invitation to the revision petitioner to take advantage of the compounding scheme if he so desired. The last paragraph of the order dated 26.12.1997 which is extracted below makes the position crystal clear.
It is absolutely clear that the revision petitioner was given an option to take advantage of the composition scheme and was only informed that in the case of proceedings not so compounded, appropriate legal proceedings will continue to recover the deficit stamp duty. I am satisfied in these circumstances that the impugned judgment can be set aside and this revision petition can be allowed. It can further be made clear that the District Registrar/Notified Collector shall be at liberty to continue with the proceedings already initiated under Section 45B.
6. In the result (a) This Revision Petition is allowed, (b) The impugned judgment is set aside, (c) It is made clear that no amount can be recovered from the revision petitioner on the basis of the order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the District Registrar/ Notified Collector, (d) It is further made clear that the District Registrar/Notified Collector shall be at liberty to continue the proceedings already initiated under Section 45B
in accordance with law. (e) The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.