The market value set forth in a conveyance derived from a court auction is to be presumed correct and not subject to further questioning by registering authorities.

1. The petitioner is a private limited company. It seeks direction to set aside the first respondent proceedings in file No. G1/MV/1430/2005, dated 19-1-2006 and for consequential direction to the respondents to release the sale deed presented for registration i.e. document No. P-95/2005, dated 1-9-2005 and rectification deed dated 23-11-2005.

2. The relevant facts insofar as are relevant for the purposes of this writ petition are :
a) Pursuant to the directions of this Court in C.A. No. 1285 of 2004 in R.C.C. No. 9 of 2001, dated 13-7-2004 the Official Liquidator conducted auction of the entire assets of the company in liquidation i.e. M/s. Nagarjuna Coated Tubes Limited namely its lands, buildings, plant, machinery and current assets. The auction was conducted on 11-8-2004.
b) The auction sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and its nominee M/s. Srushti Proprietors by the order of this Court, dated 13-7-2004 in C.A. No. 1285 of 2004 in R.C.C. No. 9 of 2001. This Court by a subsequent order dated 21-4-2005 in C.A. No. 373 of 2005 directed the Official Liquidator to execute the necessary conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner.
c) The Official Liquidator executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 1-9-2005 and the document was kept pending registration by the respondents in file No. P-95/2005.
d) On 1-12-1995 the second respondent issued a notice under S. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Act) calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty reckoning the market value of the property differently from what is stated in the sale deed and on the basis of the computation of the current market value. The petitioner submitted his response to the notice on 19-10-2005.
e) There were some variations in the items conveyed to the petitioner. Initially the land and buildings were included and subsequently machinery was also included and thus the Official Liquidator also executed a rectification deed in favour of the petitioner on 23-11-2005.
f) The petitioner filed W.P. No. 26104 of 2005 assailing the second respondent's notice dated 12-9-2005. In the writ petition the petitioner sought release of the sale deed, dated 1-9-2005 and the rectification dated 23-11-2005.
g) By the order dated 15-12-2005, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to submit its explanation to the second respondent's notice dated 12-9-2005 within the stipulated time and on such explanation the respondents were directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within 10 days.
h) The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 21-12-2005. On 28-12-2005 the respondents called upon the petitioner to submit certain documents for verification. The petitioner responded on 29-12-2005.
i) On 30-12-2005 the first respondent issued orders determining the market value of the property as per the market value guidelines. The proceedings, dated 30-12-2005, were again challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 179 of 2006. Eventually, the first respondent passed orders on 19-1-2006 finally determining the market value of the property.

3. The first respondent by the order impugned determined the market value of the property as per the market value guidelines of the Revenue Department and arrived at the value of Rs. 9,42,89,000/-. This determination of value was under S. 47-A of the Act by the first respondent. As against the said determination by the first respondent the petitioner has no doubt available an appellate remedy under S. 47-A(5) of the Act.

4. It is however, the contention of Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner need not be relegated to pursue the