Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to hold an enquiry under Rule 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Act with respect to the alleged deficit stamp duty. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner purchased an extent of 1.13 acres of land in Survey No.82/1B and 318/1 at Rasipuram Village, Namakkal District for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. The sale deed was presented before the fourth respondent for registration on 23.11.1998. The document was not released on the ground that there was some deficit in the stamp duty paid. The matter was referred to the first respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The fifth respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner shall pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,16,790, being 50% reduction under the Samadhan Scheme, which is not valid. The land is nanja land. The fifth respondent has arbitrarily valued the market value of the land. No notice had been served upon the petitioner as required under Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules. Hence the writ petition. 3.No counter has been filed by any of the respondents. 4."Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 reads as follows: (1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form I, (a)to every person by whom , and (b)to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed, informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him his representations, if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice. (2)The Collector may, if he thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued. (2)The Collector may, if he thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued. (3)The Collector may for the purpose of his enquiry-- (a)call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority; (b)examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and (c)inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned. (4)After considering the representations, if any, received from the person to whom notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued, and after examining the records and evidence before him, the Collector shall pass an order in writing provisionally determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable. The basis on which the provisional market value was arrived at shall be clearly indicated in the order." As per this Rule, the District Collector shall issue notice in Form I within a period of 21 days and call upon the parties to produce the evidence in support of their representation. If no representation is made, after the issue of notice, the procedure as laid down in Rule 6 has to be followed. 5.Rule 5 reads as follows: "The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving, at the provisional market value,-- (a) In the case of lands-- (i)classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like; (ii)classification under various tarams in the settlement register and accounts; (iii)the rate of revenue assessment for each classification; (iv)other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question; (v)points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which requires special consideration; (vi)value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity; (vii)average yield from the land, nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pump sets; (viii)the nature of crops raised on the land; and (ix)the use of land, domestic, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes and also the appreciation in value when an agricultural land is being converted to a residential, commercial or an industrial land." (b)In the case of house sites ... (c)In the case of buildings ... (d)Properties other than lands, house sites and buildings .. (c)In the case of buildings ... (d)Properties other than lands, house sites and buildings .. 6.Rule 6 Reads as follows: "Procedure after arriving at provisional market value.--The Collector shall communicate a copy of his order provisionally determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable, to all the persons who are liable to pay the duty along with the notice in Form II and call upon the parties to lodge their objections, if any, to such determination of the market value within the time specified in the notice. The Collector shall also hear the parties on the date specified in the notice or on such other day as may be fixed by him. 7.Rule 7 reads as follows: "(1)The Collector shall, after considering the representations received in writing and those urged at the time of hearing or in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned or their failure to appear in person at the time of hearing in any case after careful consideration of all the relevant factors and evidence available within him (pass an order within three months from the date of first notice) determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument, and communicate the order so passed to the parties and take steps to collect the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any. (2)A copy of the order shall be communicated to the registering officer concerned for his record. (3)The difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector shall be paid within two months from the date of final order passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 47-A. (4)The Collector shall, after collecting the difference in amount of stamp duty and interest, if any, under section 47-A, give a certificate in Form III by endorsement on the instrument." In this case the procedure as laid down under Rule 4, 5, 6 or 7 have not been followed. Hence the impugned communication is "non est" in law. Therefore the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,16,790/- or or before 31.7.1999 is not enforceable, as the order was not passed after following the procedure laid down by the Rules. Hence the impugned communication is "non est" in law. Therefore the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,16,790/- or or before 31.7.1999 is not enforceable, as the order was not passed after following the procedure laid down by the Rules. 8.Further it is to be noted that the guideline value as maintained by the Sub Registrar in his office does not have any statutory force and does not bind the parties of conveyance as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of JAWAJEE NASGNATHAM v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD,A.P (1994) 4 SCC 595 ). 9.The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of SAGAR CEMENTS LTD v. STATE OF A.P (1989) 3 Andh LT 677) has held that the value of the land in the valuation register fixed by the Government unilaterally has no statutory foundation and does not bind the parties. 10.Even earlier to that, the Madras High Court in the case of COLLECTOR, NILGIRIS v. MAHAVIR PLANTATIONS PTE LTD.(AIR 1982 Madras 138) has held as follows: "The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make under Section 47-A. The valuation guidelines were not prepared on the basis of any open hearing of the parties concerned or of any documents. They were based on data gathered broadly with reference to classification of lands, grouping of lands." Further it is not uncommon to inflate the value of the land purchased by the purchaser of the land for the purpose of getting larger sum as loan from the financial institutions like bank or nithis. Therefore on the basis of such valuation the guideline value cannot be increased. When so increased it does not reflect the actual market value. Therefore the register of valuation maintained by Sub Registrars has no statutory force and does not bind on the parties. Therefore on the basis of such valuation the guideline value cannot be increased. When so increased it does not reflect the actual market value. Therefore the register of valuation maintained by Sub Registrars has no statutory force and does not bind on the parties. 11.This court in HYDER ALI v. THE SUB REGISTRAR DISTRICT REGISTRAR CADRE (2003-2-L.W.160) has held as follows: "A combined reading of the above provisions would make the position clear that in the event the respondent is of the opinion that there was a deficit in collection of either the stamp duty or the registration fee, an enquiry could be made within a period of three years. However, admittedly, the sale deed in this case was registered on 4.10.91 and the document has been released on 30.10.91. The imugned order does not bear any date. However, the learned counsel for petitioner produced the copy of the cover by which the impugned order was despatched to the petitioner. The postal seal evidences the despatch of the said letter only on 21.2.95 which was received by the petitioner on 22.2.95. The despatch of the said letter, in the absence of specific date in the impugned order, should alone be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation for the inquiry to be initiated. That apart, the grievance of the petitioner is that there was no such enquiry at all initiated and only the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and registration fee has been made. The said impugned order has been made beyond a period of three years. The respondent has no authority to initiate either the inquiry or make a demand in respect of the payment of stamp duty as well as registration fee beyond a period of three years of the registration. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Moreover, there is no inquiry whatsoever conducted before such impugned order was passed. In the absence of inquiry, the order is also opposed to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 80-A of the Registration Act, 1908." As held above, the impugned order is non est in law. Except the order impugned no other order has been passed so far. In the absence of inquiry, the order is also opposed to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 80-A of the Registration Act, 1908." As held above, the impugned order is non est in law. Except the order impugned no other order has been passed so far. That means no order has been passed within three years from the date of registration by the first respondent. After three years no order can be passed. That is no order can be passed in future. Hence the petitioner is entitled to get the document released without paying any additional amount by way of deficit stamp duty. 10.Hence the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. W.M.OP.20483/1999 is closed.