Judgment :- The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing reference Mu.Pa./105/Pa/96 dated 30.6.98 quash the same in so far as it directs the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty a huge sum of Rs.1,40,572/- and consequently forbear the respondents from demanding the huge sum under the guise of deficit stamp for the document No.1514 of 1996 dated 19.3.1996 on the file of the second respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner and his two brothers purchased an extent of 13.05 acres of Agricultural land in S.F.No.2/2A, 2B and 3/2A and 2B of Naranapuram Village, Palladam Taluk vide Document No.1514/96 dated 19.3.1996 for Rs.1,30,600/-. The Sub-Registrar, Palladam valued the property for Rs.10,45,415/- with reference to the guideline value and referred to the first respondent for determining the market value of the property under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act . On receipt of reference the first respondent inspected the property on 19.3.1998 and determined the market value and called upon the petitioner to file his objections as to why the stamp duty should not be collected as per the determination made by the respondents. The petitioner filed his objection. After considering the objection, the present order is passed, which is impugned in the writ petition. The said order is put in issue by the petitioner on the ground that Form -2 notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his objection if any for determination of the stamp value and the order impugned are passed on the same day. The passing of the impugned order and giving a notice on the same line is nothing but farce and the first respondent is pre-determined in determining the the value as stated in the order. In the impugned order the value of the property is stated to be determined on the basis of the market value . That shows that the guide line value maintained by the department has not been taken cognizance. No enquiry muchless a personal enquiry has been conducted prior to determining the value of the land in question. 3. In the impugned order the value of the property is stated to be determined on the basis of the market value . That shows that the guide line value maintained by the department has not been taken cognizance. No enquiry muchless a personal enquiry has been conducted prior to determining the value of the land in question. 3. The first respondent filed a counter to the effect that on the Sub-Registrar valuing the property for Rs.10,45,415/- as per the provisions of the Act, Form 1 notice was issued to the petitioner as well as the seller vide the first respondent's proceedings dated 1.7.1996. But no representation whatsoever had been forthcoming till 19.3.1998. Hence the properties were inspected by the first respondent on 19.3.1998 and the market value was provisionally determined and the same was communicated along with Form 2 to the petitioner on 5.4.1998. The petitioner in his objection dated 4.5.1998, stated that he has purchased an extent of 1.00 Acre land for Rs.15,000/- vide Document No.5271 dated. 13.9.1995 and 5660 dated 27.9.1995 in S.F.No.239 and 238 of Iduvai Village Tiruppur Taluk, which is adjacent to the property in question and he has purchased the properties in question at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre and requested to accept the above rate and release his document . The objection so raised by the petitioner was considered and while fixing the market value of S.F.Nos.2 and 3 of Naranapuram Village the previous files were taken into consideration. In the proceedings of the first respondent in D.Dis.Mu.Pa.103, 104/P/97 dated 23/1/1998 the market value of the property in S.F.No.1 of the same village has been fixed at the rate of Rs.One lakh per acre. The above value was accepted by the document holder and the document was released by remitting the deficit stamp duty for the difference value. S.F.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are situated in a compact area and S.F.No.238, 239 at Iduvai Village lies western side of the S.F.No.1 of Naranapuram Village and hence the value of Rs.One lakh per acre fixed for S.F.No.1 has to be regarded as guideline value and on that basis the value has been fixed by over ruling the objections raised by the petitioner. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 5. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 5. The contention that the respondents were pre-determined in determining the value of the property in question cannot be stated to be correct because the notice in Form 2 has been issued by annexing an order which is provisional in nature. It is clear from para 2 of the Form-2 Notice that the determination of the value of the property in the order enclosed along with the Notice is only provisional in nature and the petitioner was directed to submit his objections, if any to the determination so made by the respondents. The final order dated 30.6.1998 has been passed after taking into consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner i.e. the properties under document Nos.5271 dated 13.9.1995 and 5660 dated 27.9.1995 respectively in respect of S.Nos.239 and 238 of Iduvai village have been purchased by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. However, the value per acre as determined in the impugned order has been made taking into consideration of the value, which the nearby land has fetched in the year 1998 and for that purpose the first respondent relied upon the proceedings in D.Dis.Mu.Pa 103, 104/P/97 dated 23.1.1998 in respect of S.F.No.1 of the same village for which the rate has been fixed at Rs.One lakh per acre which has been accepted and deficit stamp duty has been paid by the purchaser of the said document. Further the properties in S.F.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are situated in a compact area. The properties in S.F.Nos.238, 239 at Iduvai Village lie western side of the S.F.No.1 of Naranapuram Village. There is no difference in the land except Survey numbers. In all other aspects the Survey Nos.1, 2, 3 and Survey Nos.238 and 239 are on par with each other. Hence the reasoning stated by the respondents to arrive at the value cannot be stated to be arbitrary without any basis instead which is based on reasonableness i.e. on the basis of the document which has been registered for the nearby area in the year 1998. For the very same reasoning, the documents of the year 1995 produced by the petitioner by which the property has been purchased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre has been rejected. For the very same reasoning, the documents of the year 1995 produced by the petitioner by which the property has been purchased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre has been rejected. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to decide the issue in question. If the decision making process is correct and due process is followed, the Court never interferes with the ultimate decision. Hence I do not find any reason interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.