( 1 ) M/s. Natraj Steels Private Limited, Rajam, is the petitioner in these three writ petitions. The point raised for consideration is same in all the matters and therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of the three writ petitions by a common order.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner company purchased l/3rd of undivided interest in an extent of 3969 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 151/15 along with godowns under a registered sale deed dated 8-4-1999. If also purchased similar extent of land by two other sale deeds registered on the same date. It appears to have approached the Sub-Registrar for pre-registration enquiry as to stamp duty and after obtaining necessary clarification as to value of the property, it paid the stamp duty for the market value of the land in a sum of Rs. 47,710/- (Rupees forty seven thousand seven hundred and ten only ). The three sale deeds were registered, as mentioned supra as Document Nos. 864 of 1999, 927 of 1999 and 946 of 1999. It appears, during office audit of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajam, it was pointed out that the three sale deeds are not duly stamped and accordingly action was initiated for recovery of deficit stamp duty. The second respondent herein issued a demand notice dated 13-8-1999 followed by two show-cause notices calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount and also informed that action would be initiated if the amount is not paid. The petitioner submitted representations in all the three matters inter alia contending that the petitioner has not suppressed any material facts for the purpose of valuation of the sale deed, and therefore, the provisions of Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ( stamp Act for brevity) cannot be invoked. By an order dated 2-9-1999 in Proceedings No. 1458/99/2799 the second respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner determining that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 47,710/- (Rupees forty seven thousand seven hundred and ten only) towards deficit stamp duty in respect of the documents which were registered earlier.

( 3 ) AGAINST any order passed by the second respondent, an appeal is provided to the first respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 41-A of the Stamp Act within three months from the date of the order of the second respondent The petitioner, however, filed appeals with some delay and the first respondent rejected the appeals as barred by limitation, on 31-12-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petitions being W. P. Nos. 2489, 2504 and 2584 of 2000 before this Court. This Court remanded the matters to the first respondent for consideration of the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. Therefore, the first respondent condoned the delay and considered the appeals. Before the first respondent, the petitioner contended that he has not suppressed the valuation of the property determined under the sale deeds and therefore, the provisions of Section 41-A of the Stamp Act are not attracted, that the second respondent did not pass any orders duly considering the representation made by the petitioner and that applying market value at Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred only) per square yard to the property sold under the sale deeds is erroneous.

( 4 ) THE first respondent after considering the grounds urged before him, dismissed the appeals by common order dated 5-3-2004 holding that Section 41-A of the Stamp Act would be attracted even where the registering authority commits a mistake in valuing the document. Assailing the common order of the first respondent, the petitioner filed these three separate writ petitions relating to each sale deed registered on 8-4-1999.

( 5 ) THE second respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petitions contending that as per Urban Basic Register of Rajam, the property comprised in Door Nos. 8-1182/ 8-219 was valued at Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred only) per square yard, which ought to have been ad