The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must have prima facie material to come to a conclusion that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instruments, and the exercise of power under section 47(A) of the Act must be within the period stipulated under the Act.

1. The amended prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 8.4.2002, as confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 9.1.2003. The matter arises under the Indian Stamp Act (Act) and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.

2. The first petitioner is the mother of the third petitioner and the second petitioner is her son in law. The petitioners purchased 'Punja' cultivable lands in survey No.1474/3, Konneri Kuppam Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, by three registered sale deeds dated 6.4.1997, registered as document Nos.526/97, 1041/97 and 1042 of 1997, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Joint-I, Kancheepuram, the third respondent. Though the sale deeds were registered for more than 5 = years, the third respondent refused to return the documents, stating that the property purchased under the said documents ought to have been valued on square foot basis by adopting the guideline value for urban properties maintained in the Office of the third respondent. The total valuation of all the three sale deeds at Rs.1,19,28,960/- was fixed as against the valuation mentioned in the documents at Rs.1,23,120/-.

3. It is stated that the first respondent without conducting any enquiry under section 47(A) of the Act, returned the documents to the third respondent, by proceedings dated 22.3.2000. According to the first respondent, in the meeting held in the office of the second respondent on 19.1.2000, he was advised that the sale deeds referred the lands as 'nanja thottakal' lands and therefore, the documents should be sent back to the third respondent for determining the market value of the property. On receipt of the documents, the third respondent placed the same before the District Registrar, Kancheepuram District, who conducted an inspection of the land and was satisfied that during the relevant period, cultivation was done in the said lands. Accordingly, the District Registrar, determined the value of one acre of punja land during 1997 as Rs.26,16,000/-and submitted a report to the second respondent. Based on such report, the second respondent by proceedings dated 8.4.2002, determined the market value at Rs.26,16,000/- per acre which was 1/3rd of the urban land value. Pursuant thereto by proceedings dated 8.4.2002, the second respondent demanded stamp duty on the enhanced amount. The petitioners' case is that from the date of registration of the sale deeds i.e. on 6.4.1997, till the filing of the writ petition no enquiry was conducted under section 47(A) of the Act, to determine the market value of the land and the proceedings of the second respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in M/S PARKVIEW ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [AIR 1990 (MADRAS) 251]. It is further submitted that no enquiry under section 47 (A) of the Act can be conducted after about twelve years after the date of the registration of the three sale deeds, dated 6.4.1997. As the documents were not released, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12080 of 2005, and this Court by order dated 12.4.2005, after taking note of the earlier orders passed by this Court, directed the first respondent to release the documents, subject to the usual conditions. The petitioners were directed to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will not alienate the property in question and also produce the documents as and when required. The documents were directed to be released with an endorsement that the documents are subject to the proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act. Based on the direction issued, the petitioners filed the undertaking and the documents have been returned.

4. The petitioners by relying upon the decision of this Court in KRISHNA.M v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTO, ERODE DISTRICT [(1998) 3 CTC 366], submitted that the sale deeds were registered on 6.4.1997, and the