M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellants/Respondents have focused the present intra Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 06.09.2013 in W.P.No.29812 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition.

2.According to the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants, the Learned Single Judge should not have directed to delete the endorsement made in the sale deeds and return the same to the Respondents/Writ Petitioners.

3.The Learned Special Government Pleader vehemently contended that the Learned Single Judge ought to have noted the ingredients of Section 47 A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which stipulates that while registering certain class of value of the property has not been truly set forth in the endorsement in the instrument and after registering the instrument, the authority concerned shall refer the same to the Collector for the purpose of determination of market value of such property and proper duty payable thereon.

4.The Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Respondents had suppressed the market value and presented the instrument with deficit stamp duty and therefore, the said endorsement was referred to the Collector under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

5.The Learned Special Government Pleader urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate an important fact that the date of presentation of a document for registration would be the crucial date for determining the market value of the property as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others V. Khandaka Jain Jewellers reported in 2008 (1) CTC at page 60.

6.It is to be noted that the Respondents/Petitioners purchased 'Punja Cultivable Lands' in Survey Nos.1474/3 at Konneri kuppam Village, Kanchipuram Taluk by means of three registered Sale Deeds dated 06.04.1997, bearing Doc. Nos.526/97, 1041/97 and 1042/97 on the file of the Third Appellant/Sub Registrar, Joint-I, Kancheepuram. The clear cut case of the Respondents is that the Third Appellant/Third Respondent had refused to return the documents although the sale deeds were registered more than 5 ½ years ago, mentioning that the property purchased in terms of the documents should have been valued on square feet basis by adhering to the guideline value for the urban properties. Indeed, the valuation of the three sale deeds were determined at Rs.1,19,28,960/-, in contra, distinction to the valuation specified in the documents at Rs.1,23,120/-.

7.The version of the Third Appellant/Third Respondent in the counter affidavit (filed in the Writ Petition) indicates that the documents were registered but they were mentioned as agricultural lands. Further, the District Registrar in his inspection had found that the lands were in a developed area and only the Respondents/Petitioners has shown a lesser value than the guideline value and hence, he fixed the value at Rs.26,1600/-per acre. Moreover, after examining the report of the District Registrar, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration recommended the said value to be followed which was accepted by the Second Appellant/Second Respondent. As such, proceedings dated 08.04.2002 was issued by the Second Appellant/Second Respondent determining the value of the land at Rs.26,16,000/-.

8. It comes to be known that the First Respondent/First Petitioner gave a representation on 02.09.2002, mentioning the stamp duty in question was paid in accordance with the guideline determined during the year 1997, as the lands were classified as agricultural lands and that the fixation of guideline value after 5 ½ years was arbitrary and also without jurisdiction and prayed for return of documents. However, the Respondents' matter was referred to the First Appellant/First Respondent in terms of ingredients of Section 47 A(1)(b) of the Act for determination of the stamp duty. Added further, a notice under Form II was issued to them. The District Revenue Officer (Sta