Judgment :- The case of the petitioner is that the prop­erty bearing plot No.4, Dowhith Pallivasal Lane, Labbai Patti Street comprised in new T.S.No.54/4, Block No.31, New Ward No.8, Trichy, measuring an extent of 2142 sq.ft, was purchased by her for a sale consideration of Rs.6,42,600/-. Her vendor executed the sale deed dated 6.5.2004 and the same was registered by the second respondent as docu­ment No.1411 of 2004 on 6.5.2004 itself without any objection. 2. Subsequently, according to the peti­tioner, the first respondent, in his office pro­ceedings in S.R.No.1625/04 dated 5.7.2004, issued a notice in Form I under Section 47-A(1) and (3) of the Indian Stamp Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) alleging that the guideline value of the said property is Rs.46,41,714/- and a sum of Rs.3,71,344/-should be paid as the stamp duty, but, the petitioner valued the property only for Rs.6, 42, 600/- and paid a sum of Rs.52,010/-. By the impugned proceedings, the peti­tioner was called upon to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 3,19,334/-. The petitioner was also called upon to submit her explanation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 3. According to the petitioner, the afore said notice was issued without jurisdiction and the second respondent, having accepted the document and completed the registration without raising any objection with regard to its valuation, has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the first respondent under Section 47-A of the Act nor retain the document. According to the petitioner, the condition precedent for making a reference is that there must be rea­sons for the Registering Authority to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document presented for registration. The reasons should be recorded and then only, the matter can be re­ferred to the Competent Authority for determining the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon. Accord­ing to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2, without fallowing any one of the mandatory procedure, have initiated the impugned pro­ceedings. 4. Though time has been granted suffi­ciently, no counter has been filed by the re­spondents. But, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, made his submissions. 5. Accord­ing to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2, without fallowing any one of the mandatory procedure, have initiated the impugned pro­ceedings. 4. Though time has been granted suffi­ciently, no counter has been filed by the re­spondents. But, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, made his submissions. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the point raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of M. Ponnusamy and Others v. District Collector, Erode and Others 1999 (2) LW 231 , which judgment has been confirmed by a Division Bench in the case of District Collec­tor, Erode District, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy 2001 (2) CTC 449 : (2001) 2 MLJ 458 . 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that the above pro­nouncements squarely apply to the facts of this case. 7. In the decision rendered in District Col-lector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Pon­nusamy (supra), in paragraph 19, it is observed as follows: "19. It is seen, in this case there is no deci­sion on the part of the Registering Authority that he had reason to believe that there was an attempt on the part of the parties to un­dervalue the subject matter of the transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. The only reasons apparently found from his memo, that it is contrary to the guidelines, cannot be the ground for referring the matter to the District Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, espe­cially after having registered the document without any demur and on his satisfying about the market value." 8. In paragraph 20 of the same judgment, it is observed as follows: "20....This decision has been taken by the Registering Authority, though it is not re­quired under the rules to be taken after hear­ing the parties. In view of the consequence that follows out of this decision, it has to be held that the Registering Authority has to act judicially and therefore, there must be some records and basis to show that he has reason to believe that the document has been undervalued. " 9. In view of the consequence that follows out of this decision, it has to be held that the Registering Authority has to act judicially and therefore, there must be some records and basis to show that he has reason to believe that the document has been undervalued. " 9. In the same judgment, in paragraph 30, it is further observed as follows: "30...Therefore, the direction of the learned single Judge that reference should be made immediately after registration or no sooner the registration is complete, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of completion of registration of the docu­ment and refer the instrument to the Collec­tor under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act, besides sending communication to the person who is liable to pay the stamp duty on the instrument in question, cannot be objected to. In our view, this is a salutary direction to see that Section 47-A(1) does not operate as an engine of oppression on the plea of under valuation. " 10. In the same judgment, in paragraph 33, it also observed as follows: "33... But, there is no time left for the Reg­istering Authority to refer under sub-sec­tion (1) of Section 47-A. It is to follow (sic allow) registration subject to the time taken for the procedural formalities, but in any case, it shall not exceed three weeks from the date of registration. A contra stand on behalf of the appellants is ex facie unreasonable and cannot stand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. " 11. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the first respondent has issued the impugned proceedings on the basis of the ref­erence said to have been received from the second respondent. The first respondent has reproduced the contents of Annexure sent by the second respondent along with his reference. Admittedly, the document has been registered as document No.1411 of 2004 on 6.5.2004. It is clear that the second respondent has made the reference only based on the guideline value as found in the guideline register. 12. The first respondent has reproduced the contents of Annexure sent by the second respondent along with his reference. Admittedly, the document has been registered as document No.1411 of 2004 on 6.5.2004. It is clear that the second respondent has made the reference only based on the guideline value as found in the guideline register. 12. There is absolutely no record whatso­ever, either noted in the document or by a separate endorsement to show that there was any decision on the part of the second respondent, namely the Registering Authority, that he had reasons to believe that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to under-value the subject matter of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. The only reason apparently found from his memo is that the value is contrary to the value men­tioned in the guideline register and that cannot be a ground for referring the matter to the first respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, especially after having registered the docu­ment without any demur and on his satisfying about the market value. This Court is of the considered view that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the decision of District Collector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Pon­nusamy (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case, which is fairly conceded by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Therefore, the writ petitioner has to succeed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is al lowed. The impugned order is set aside. How ever, there will be no order as to costs. 14. After pronouncement of the order, learner counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending the writ petition, by an order date, 13.12.2005 in W.P.M.P.No. 698 of 2004, the document in question was returned to the petitioner with an endorsement containing certain undertakings and in the light of the far that the writ petition has been allowed, the salt endorsement may be ordered to be deleted. 15. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted, since the petitioner has succeeded in the writ petition and no such endorsement can continue to be there on the document in question. 16. Accordingly, the second respondent 0 directed to delete the endorsement made on the document in question within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition allowed.