ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register the deed of relinquishment, dated 06-07-2005 as well as the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and his brothers by Police Officers Co-operative House Building Society limited, Tirupathi (hereafter called, the Police Officers Society) in respect of the land in survey Nos.250/3 (Acs.0.47), 250/5 (Acs.0.67), 250/8 (Acs.0.05), 250/9 (Acs.0.09), 251/6 (Acs.0.32), 250/4 (Acs.0.05), 250/7· (Acs.0.05), 251/7 (Acs.0.16) and 251/5 (Acs.0.37) of Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal of Chittoor District (hereinafter called, the subject lands) and for such other orders as it deems fit. Government of Andhra Pradesh; the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh; the District Registrar, Chittoor District; and the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta are shown as respondents. The petitioner obviously seeks a direction to the fourth respondent though the others are arrayed as contesting respondents. 2. The petitioner and his brothers, M/s. Sainatha Reddy, Gopinath Reddy and Viswanatha Reddy are allegedly owners and possessors of the subject lands and the petitioner claims to be absolute owner of the lands in survey Nos.251/7 (Acs.0.38), 249/3 (Acs.1.06), 250/2 (Acs.0.71 ),250/6 (Acs.0.07) 250/4 (Acs.0.16), 251/2 (Acs.0.16) and 250/9 (Acs.0.03) situated at Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. It appears there was an understanding among the brothers and Police Officers Society. As a result of this, the said Society executed deed of relinquishment on 06-07-2005 in favour of the petitioner and his brothers in respect of the subject lands. The same was presented before the fourth respondent for registration. The petitioner also obtained a sale deed, dated 07-07-2005, in his favour in respect of the lands, which are claimed by him in survey Nos.251/7 etc for consideration of Rs.41,12,000/-. The sale deed was also presented for registration. The fourth respondent directed the petitioner and his brothers to pay the stamp duty on the value of land at Rs.2,91 ,0001- per acre for the lands in survey Nos.249/2 to 249/5 and 251/3 to 251/8 and Survey No.250/3. The fourth respondent also advised the petitioner and his brothers to pay stamp duty as well as registration fee at Rs.15,98,0001- per acre in respect of the lands in survey Nos.250/2, 250/4 to 250/8 and 251/9 and 251/10. The petitioners accordingly paid the stamp duty and registration charges. The fourth respondent also advised the petitioner and his brothers to pay stamp duty as well as registration fee at Rs.15,98,0001- per acre in respect of the lands in survey Nos.250/2, 250/4 to 250/8 and 251/9 and 251/10. The petitioners accordingly paid the stamp duty and registration charges. Nonetheless, the fourth respondent did not release the documents on the ground that the petitioner is required to pay the revised rates of stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.No.17412 of 2005. This Court disposed of the same on 31-8-2005 directing the respondents to process the documents of the petitioner In accordance with law. In spite of the same, the documents were not released after due registration obliging the petitioner to pay the rates prevailing after 01-08-2005. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 13-06-2006 passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.6915 of 2006 directing the fourth respondent to release the relinquishment deed, dated 06-07-2005 as well as the sale deed, dated 07-07-2005, on condition of petitioner giving undertaking to pay difference of stamp duty with reference to revision of rates in the event of writ petition being dismissed. As the documents were not registered even after receipt of the interim orders, Contempt Case being C.C.No.660 of 2006 is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As the respondents filed W. V.M.P.No.1052 of 2006, all the matters are heard together. The writ petition and the contempt case are being disposed of by this order. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent along with the application for vacating the interim orders, it is stated that the documents presented by the petitioner are kept pending for registration. The documents allegedly did not reflect real market value as on the date of presentation and that the petitioner did not pay the registration charges based on the market value fixed by the Government as per A.P. Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998 (the Rules, for brevity) promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.301, Revenue (Reg-I), dated 04-05-1998. A reference is also made to the instructions issued by the second respondent vide Memo No.MV.1 /4856/2005-1, dated -02-06-2000. A reference is also made to the instructions issued by the second respondent vide Memo No.MV.1 /4856/2005-1, dated -02-06-2000. It is also stated that the document has been referred by the fourth respondent under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Stamp Act, for brevity) on 13-07-2005 to the third respondent for determination of market value based on the revised guidelines. The third respondent further states that after receiving reference from the fourth respondent, he issued notice to the petitioner on 12-09-2005 advising the petitioner to appear on 21-09-2005, but the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the third respondent decided to issue fresh notice to the petitioner. After this Court passed interim directions on 13-06-2006, the petitioner submitted undertaking as stipulated by this Court, by which date the fourth respondent referred the matter under Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act to the third respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner has withheld the factum of reference by the fourth respondent to the third respondent under Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner does not seriously dispute the reference by the fourth respondent to third respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act. When the reference before the third respondent is pending, it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, more often than not, the question whether the revised market value guidelines issued by duly constituted committee under the Rules, can be made applicable to the documents presented for registration and kept pending for one reason or the other prior to the date of implementation of the revised market value guidelines, is coming up before this Court quite often. Therefore, this question needs to be considered. Be it also noted that in the counter affidavit tiled on behalf of the respondents, objection is twofold: that the petitioner failed to pay the stamp duty as per the revised market value guidelines and that the document kept pending does not reflect the real market value as on the date of presentation. In view of this, even it the question of law is decided, still it is for the third respondent to decide the other question whether the document reflects correct market value or not. 6. In view of this, even it the question of law is decided, still it is for the third respondent to decide the other question whether the document reflects correct market value or not. 6. There is no dispute that the relinquishment deed was presented on 06-07 -2005 and the sale deed was presented on 07-07-2005. It is a case of the petitioner that before presenting these documents, he obtained market value for the purpose of stamp duty as it prevails in July, 2005 and accordingly paid the stamp duty and registration charges. As per the counter affidavit, the fourth respondent referred the document to the third respondent under Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act on 13-07-2005 Le., within a period of one week from the date of presentation of the document. Insofar as the reference is concerned, the same cannot be faulted as on that date the question whether revised market value guidelines would apply or not did not arise. As on 13-07-2005, when the document was referred under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, the question was whether the two documents reflect the correct market value or not. While the reference was pending - it is not disputed; the revised market value guidelines were made by the Urban Areas Competent Authority empowered to revise market value guidelines. There is also no dispute that these revised guidelines came into force with effect from 01-08-2005. 7. At that stage, the petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P.No.17 412 of 2005 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the applicability of revised market value guidelines as illegal. This Court disposed of the matter on 31-08-2005 directing the respondents to act in accordance with law. Again the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 18-04-2006 without disclosing about the reference made by the fourth respondent to third respondent presumably for the reason that admittedly the notice sent by the third respondent under Section 47-A (2) of the Stamp Act was not served on the petitioner. Though no specific order is passed either by the third respondent or the fourth respondent, the petitioner alleges that when he repeatedly requested the fourth respondent, the latter informed him that the market value of the subject lands have been revised by the Government and demanded the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and registration charges at the revised rates. Though no specific order is passed either by the third respondent or the fourth respondent, the petitioner alleges that when he repeatedly requested the fourth respondent, the latter informed him that the market value of the subject lands have been revised by the Government and demanded the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and registration charges at the revised rates. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to release the documents. 8. The above factual background is admitted or not seriously disputed. Which market value guidelines made under the Rules are to be applied while calculating the stamp duty and registration charges? The Government of Andhra Pradesh made the Market Value Guidelines Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.301, dated 04-05-1998. These Rules superseded the earlier Rules. Rule 3(d) of the Market Value Guidelines Rules defines Market Value Guidelines as, "the set of values of immovable properties in different villages, Municipalities, Corporations and other local areas in the State, arrived at by the respective Committees, from time to time in terms of these Rules and incorporated in the registers prescribed". As per Rule 3(a) of the Rules, Committee means, "a committee constituted under these Rules". Rule 4 of the Rules deals with such committees, which are Central Valuation Advisory Committee, the authority competent to prepare market value guidelines for urban areas (Urban Areas Committee) and the authority competent to prepare market value guidelines for rural areas. As per Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules, areas falling within the jurisdiction of Municipality, Municipal Corporation, Urban Development Authorities, Municipalities and notified areas including the Gram Panchayat falling within the master plan areas and urban agglomeration are treated as Urban Areas. There is no dispute that Tiruchanur village, where the property is situated, forms part of Tirupathi Urban Development Authority and falls within the master plan for Tirupathi. 9. Rule 5 of the Rules lays down that the periodicity of revision of market value guidelines inter alia for Urban Areas covered by Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules shall be every year and such revision shall be effective from First August every year. This makes it very clear that whenever the Urban Areas Committee prepares market value guidelines for the purpose of revision every year, such revision shall be implemented only from First August of the Calendar year. This makes it very clear that whenever the Urban Areas Committee prepares market value guidelines for the purpose of revision every year, such revision shall be implemented only from First August of the Calendar year. This only means that the revised market value guidelines whenever they are made prior to 31 51 July of the calendar year shall have to be implemented only from First August of the calendar year. Such revision has no application to the documents submitted for registration, which are kept pending or for the documents which have already been registered prior to 31st July. This Court hastens to add that, however, this does not take away the power of the competent authority under Sections 41-A and 47-A (1) and (3) of the Stamp Act to re-determine the stamp duty even in respect of documents already registered. The language of Rules 3(d) and 5 of the Rules is very clear and on true interpretation of these, this Court has no doubt whatsoever that the revised - market value guidelines prepared by -the Urban Areas Committee, shall be implemented only from First August and those revised rates for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges cannot be applied retrospectively or to the documents which are kept pending. This is altogether different from the enquiry contemplated under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act to assess the correct market value of the property, which is subject matter of the instrument. For instance, if registering authority has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, even though it is in compliance with the market value guidelines, still reference can be made to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act to determine correct market value of the property, which is subject matter of the instrument. 10. There is yet another reason to hold that the revised market value guidelines shall operate prospectively from First August and not earlier to the date of implementation. The market value guidelines Rules made in exercise of powers under Section 47-A read with Sections 75 and 75-A of the Stamp Act form the delegated legislation under the Stamp Act. The enabling provisions do not specifically confer power to make Rules with retrospective effect. The market value guidelines Rules made in exercise of powers under Section 47-A read with Sections 75 and 75-A of the Stamp Act form the delegated legislation under the Stamp Act. The enabling provisions do not specifically confer power to make Rules with retrospective effect. The relevant committee constituted cannot make revised guidelines from the date anterior to First August when the delegated legislation mandates that the periodicity of revision is one year and the date of implementation of revision is from First August. That the delegated legislation cannot make Rules retrospectively unless such retrospective delegated legislation is intra vires is well settled rule of interpretation flaw. 11. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to whom the fourth respondent has made reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act to give notice to the petitioner and determine the market value of the property, which is subject matter of the relinquishment deed, dated 06-07-2005 and market value of the sale deed, dated 07-07-2005 presented by the petitioner and/or petitioner and his brothers, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove with regard to the application of revised market value guidelines statedly made by the Urban Areas Committee under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. Needless to mention that if the petitioner suffers any adverse decision by the third respondent, it shall be open to him to prefer an appeal before the competent authority under Section 47-A (4) and (5) of the Stamp Act. 12. Though the interim order was passed by this Court on 13-06-2006 directing the respondents to release the document, it is now brought out before this Court that the documents were not released and the documents submitted by the petitioner were referred to the third respondent under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. This is sufficient to exonerate the respondents from indictment of Contempt of Court. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.