V.M. Velumani, J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29.04.2016, made in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2016.

2. The appellants are the respondents and the respondents are the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2016. The respondents filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 02.03.2016, passed by the third appellant and further forbearing the appellants from taking any proceedings to recover any additional stamp duty and registration fee.

3. According to the respondents, the first respondent's mother Venkittammal @ Sakku Bai entered into an agreement of sale with one Shanmugasundaram Pillai and Rajammal on 02.07.1987 in respect of the property in T.S.No.1605/2B and T.S.No.1606/2, measuring 1+ cents and 55 cents respectively. The possession of the said properties were handed over to the first respondent's mother on payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.26,131.25. Before executing the sale deed, the said Shanmugasundaram Pillai and Rajammal died. Their legal heirs entered into another agreement of sale in the month of October 1996 by confirming the earlier terms and agreed to execute the sale deed. The legal heirs executed the sale deed dated 30.01.1997 and presented along with respondents for registration before the third appellant. The third appellant did not register the sale deed, but kept it pending. In the meantime, the first respondent's mother Venkittammal @ Sakku Bai died on 28.09.1997. Thereafter, at the request of the first respondent and his brother, the third appellant registered the sale deed as Document No.456/2000, but refused to release the sale deed.

4. The first respondent and his brother approached the authorities for releasing the document. While so, notices dated 05.01.2005 and 30.03.2005 were issued to the mother of the first respondent calling upon her to pay a sum of Rs.7,91,022/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs.65,920/- as registration fee and directed her to avail the benefit under G.O.(Ms)No.31, dated 30.04.2005 under ‘Samadhan Scheme’. The respondents filed their objections as their mother died on 28.09.1997. They also gave a representation, dated 25.06.2013 to the third appellant to release the sale deed. The third appellant did not pass any order. Therefore, the first respondent and his brother filed W.P.(MD)No.11853 of 2013 before this Court seeking a direction to release the sale deed, dated 30.01.1997, in Document No.456/2000. Pending the said writ petition, the first respondent's brother died. The respondents 2 to 4 were impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition. This Court vide order dated 18.01.2016, directed the third appellant to consider the representation of the first respondent, dated 25.06.2013 and pass orders on merits.

5. The third appellant vide impugned proceedings, dated 02.03.2016, informed the first respondent that the sale deed is with the second appellant for consideration with regard to the value of the property and deficit stamp duty and directed the first respondent to approach the second appellant. Against the said order, the respondents have filed W.P.(MD)No.5956 of 2016 for the relief stated supra.

6. According to the respondents, after registration, the authorities have no right to retain the document for any reason, in view of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The appellants did not follow the procedures as contemplated under Indian Stamp Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and therefore, the proceedings with regard to undervaluation had lapsed. The appellants did not make any demand within three years from the date of registration as contemplated in Second Proviso to Section 33-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

7. The appellants submitted that they have followed the procedure as per Indian Stamp Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and an order has been passed in the year 20