Reference regarding under valuation of the instrument has to be made within three weeks.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. Respondents are the appellants. A batch of 42 writ petitions were filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the third respondent namely the Joint Register No.I, Office of the District Registrar, Erode to deliver the original registered document dated 23.8.1995 and pass such further order as the court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. The learned Judge has not only issued the direction as prayed for, but has also quashed the Reference made under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. These writ appeals are against this order.

2. Thefacts of the case are stated below:

The respondents in each of the writ appeals, 21 of them, have purchased an undivided 1?21 share in Door Nos.406/407, Perunthurai Road, Erode by sale deeds dated 23.8.1995 and they were presented for registration on the same day. All the documents were duly registered on the same day by the third appellant herein who assigned separate document numbers for each of the deeds of conveyance and completed the registration. However, the documents were not returned to the respondents and hence they approached the second and third appellants more than 20 times within the period of two years from the date of registration with a request to return the original registered documents. According to them, appellants 2 and 3 had ignored their request for the reasons best known to themselves and were purposely and intentionally evading delivery of the document under some pretext or other. Since there was no valid reason for withholding the documents for a period of one year and eleven months, legal notices were issued to them on i 18.6.1997 requesting them to deliver the original documents within one week. The third appellant, in his reply dated 23.6.1997, has stated that the report on the market value is awaited and that they will be intimated about that in due course. Contending that the reply is only to drag on the proceedings and that in the absence of the original document, their valuable rights to raise loan for their business etc. is affected, they have preferred the writ petitions on 3.8.1997. After receipt of the notice from the court, the third appellant made a reference on 25.9.1997 under Section 47(A)(1) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 24/1967 of the Indian Stamp Act to the Collector. The respondents have, inter alia, contended that the nondelivery of the original sale deeds by the third appellant is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that it was beyond his jurisdiction. According to them, the documents were duly registered and he had no reasons to believe that the market value of the property had not been truly set forth in the instrument. That is the reason why the third appellant had been keeping the original document with him without making any reference. If he had not been satisfied with the valuation of the stamp duty, the third appellant ought to have referred it within a reasonable time. Therefore, the retention of the original document by the third appellant was without jurisdiction and in excess of his power. It is further contended that the third appellant ,failed to understand the difficulties of the respondents due to non-delivery of the original document-.and he had shown callousness and indifference in gross negligence of his duties. The third appellant, according to them, ought to have returned the original document-as per Section 61(2) of the Registration Act and therefore, the failure on the part of the third appellant is a colourable exercise of power.

3. The appellants, in their counter affidavit in the writ petitions, have stated that the respondent had valued the property at Rs.100 per sq.ft. as against the guideline value of Perunudhurai-Road at Rs.270.50 per sq.ft., that one Annamalai had submitted a petition on 26.8.1995 to the Inspector General of Registration alleging that the properties have been under-valued and that ther