Judgment : the court made the following order: heard. an order passed by the revenue divisional officer, aruppukottai, in roc.b2/23203/ 84 dated 14. 1987, in a matter referred to him for adjudication under sec.47-a(1) of the indian stamp act (tamil nadu amendment act 1987) by the joint sub registrar i of virudhunagar, with regard to the undervaluation of a document for the purpose of stamp duty payable under the relevant act, and the consequent appeal made in c.m.a.no.3 of 1987 before the learned subordinate judge, srivilliputhur, and the order of the lower appellate judge reversing the order of the r.d.o. made on 10. 1988, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision. .2. the respondent herein purchased an extent of 98 cents of vacant land, for a sum of rs.2,940 situate in survey no.131/34 from one mariyammal of rosalpatti village. with regard to its value, for the purpose of stamp Duty and general stamps payable on the said instrument, as the Joint Sub Registrar Number I. Virudhunagar, found it very low against its real value at Rs.19,600 being the market value, issued a notice in Form No.1, as provided under Rule 4 of the relevant Act to the parties concerned and for which, there appears, there was no objection or representation. Therefore, the matter has been referred to for the adjudication before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, who in turn in ROC 82/23203/84 dated 14. 1987 considered the whole matter a fresh after calling for the written objections from the concerned persons by sending a notice in Form II. 3. For various reasonings and consideration made, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, in the above reference cited, overruled the objection raised by the claimant/the respondent herein and confirmed the provisional order and whereby, directed him to remit the deficit stamp Duty of Rs.1,995 to the concerned office at the rate fixed by the Tahsildar. 4. Challenging the said order, an appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 1987 has been preferred by the respondent herein before the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as above referred was set aside and the appeal was allowed in full by the lower appellate Judge. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner herein, as above referred. 5. On consideration of the matter in its entirety, the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as above referred was set aside and the appeal was allowed in full by the lower appellate Judge. Aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner herein, as above referred. 5. I have heard Mr.Swaminathan, learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) for and on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant herein. .6. With regard to the purchase of an extent of 98 cents of vacant land under the document in question, for the sum of Rs.2,940 by the respondent herein from one Mariyammal of Rosalpatti Village, an instrument as provided by the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act had been prepared and presented for registration, there was no controversy or dispute among the parties herein. As the Registering authority felt that the property referred to in the said document has been undervalued, it appears that he has referred the matter to the Tahsildar of concerned jurisdiction for the relevant proceedings to be initiated. Accordingly, by virtue of Sec.47-A(i) the matter has been referred for adjudication before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, who is the revision petitioner herein. As part of the proceedings, it appears further a written objection was obtained from the respondent herein by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in Form No.2 of the Act as evident from the impugned order. However, it is noticed that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer has not at all adverted his mind to any of the objections raised by the claimant though it is available with him in writing nor has he recorded oral evidence either from the claimant or from the revenue officials concerned. Even for the data sale deeds relied on by him, there was no semblance of proof or relevancy clinching the proximity of the said documents to the property in question. The only document, document No.1079 of 1984 dated 19. 1984 relating to the property situate in S.No.l31/3-A of Rosalpatti village has not even been filed before him for consideration. 7. Above all and as a climax, learned R.D.O. has not made any attempts to scrutinise how the higher value either at the rate mentioned by the Sub Registrar or the Tahsildar would have been possible. 1984 relating to the property situate in S.No.l31/3-A of Rosalpatti village has not even been filed before him for consideration. 7. Above all and as a climax, learned R.D.O. has not made any attempts to scrutinise how the higher value either at the rate mentioned by the Sub Registrar or the Tahsildar would have been possible. The case records do not disclose as to whether the learned Officer has adverted his mind to the value found in the Government guidelines for the property in question but instead of the above exercise to be necessarily done by him, it appears he has overruled the objections raised by the claimant and confirmed the provisional order passed by the concerned authorities and directed the claimant to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,995 fixing the value of the property as Rs.19,600 which procedure adopted by the learned R.D.O., with great constraint in my view is totally against the settled legal principles and norms, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law for a single moment. .8. However, while adverting to the said laches above referred, though a grievance was projected before the learned lower appellate authority the lower appellate authority, though set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, has not even adverted his mind to the guideline value fixed by the Government nor evinced any interest in perusing the relevant Government records or proper evidence to find out the correct value of the property in question. He ought to have sent for the guide-lines value fixed by the Government for the property in question and if for any reason, he found that the R.D.O. while passing the order at the inception has not followed the correct procedure, then he ought to have remanded the matter for fresh disposal but however, he allowed the appeal as if the liability has become automatically extinguished. In this context, it is noticed that if a property purchased under the document in question is found to be undervalued purposefully, then one must have taken note of the fact that the proper revenue due to the Government is being evaded and that therefore, it is not a single and complete process but however a continuing one and the liability if established is bound to be executed. This norm however has been ignored by both the courts below, which resulted in the loss of revenue to the State and also great injustice to a respectable citizen of this State for the simple reason of not following the procedure laid down by law. It has, therefore, under the circumstances, become necessary for me to interfere in this matter for the reason of the gross error committed by the learned lower appellate authority as well as the learned Revenue Divisional Officer concerned while passing the impugned orders. 9. To meet the ends of justice, I must necessarily set aside the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority made in C.M.A.No.3 of 1987 on 10. 1988 and the initial order passed by the learned R.D.O. under that appeal but however to remand the matter to the learned Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration of the whole matter afresh and to dispose the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the records by giving an opportunity to the claimant/ respondent as well as others concerned, to adduce oral and documentary evidence and ascertain the data-sale deed with reference to proof and relevancy and the guideline value for the property in question and with reference to the proximity of the place purchased by the claimant/ respondent. While doing so, I would make it clear that none of my observations made above are to be taken as guiding factor for arriving at the proper conclusion after the full enquiry. 10. With the above direction, the revision is allowed and accordingly, the impugned order passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 1987on10. 1988 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration into the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai. There will be no order as to costs under the circumstances.