O R D E R The 1st respondent herein purchased an extent of 60.5 square yards of plot in Miryalguda town. Accordingly, she presented a document dated 5.3.2003 for registration to the 2nd petitioner. She paid the stamp duty and registration charges by treating the value of the property at Rs.60,000/-, the consideration shown in the document. 2. The 2nd petitioner entertained a doubt as to the accuracy of the value furnished in the document. Therefore, he referred the matter to the 1st petitioner under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act (for short the Act. A show-cause notice was issued to the 1st respondent and an explanation was submitted thereto. Through his order dated 27.6.2003, the 1st petitioner held that the market value of the property in question is Rs.4,800/- per square yard. Aggrieved by that order, the 1st respondent filed C.M.A.No. 9 of 2004 in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Tract Court) Nalgonda at Miryalguda under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act. Through its order dated 28.2.2005, the appellate Court had set aside the order passed by the 1 st petitioner and held that the value of the property furnished by the 1st respondent is proper. Hence this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Ms.M.Rama, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that petitioners 1 and 2 have undertaken inspection of the site physically and on a comparison of the value of the properties in the neighbourhood, the 1st petitioner arrived at the conclusion that the market value is Rs.4,800/- per square yard. She contends that having regard to the fact that the property is situated in a developed commercial locality and in view of the value entered in the basic value register, it cannot be said that the value assessed by the lst petitioner is excessive. The learned Government Pleader points out that the lower appellate Court proceeded on certain assumptions contrary to the evidence on record. 4. The assessment of the value of the immovable properties, in the context of payment of stamp duty and registration, presents its own difficulty. Though the Government prepares the basic value register and revises it from time to time, the figures mentioned therein mostly provide guidelines and they are far from conclusive. 4. The assessment of the value of the immovable properties, in the context of payment of stamp duty and registration, presents its own difficulty. Though the Government prepares the basic value register and revises it from time to time, the figures mentioned therein mostly provide guidelines and they are far from conclusive. In a series of judgments, this Court held that it is the actual value of the property depending on its location, utility and the nature of the transaction that must guide the authorities in the matter of fixation of the value The 2nd petitioner felt that the value of the property furnished by the 1st respondent in the document is not proper and, therefore, made a reference to the 1st petitioner under Section 47-A of the Act. 5. The 1st petitioner ought to have undertaken an objective assessment of the value of the property. A perusal of the order passed by him discloses that on the basis of the inspection made by him, he arrived at a conclusion that the value is 4,800/- per square yard. No reference was made to contemporary sales of the surrounding area. It is as subjective as it could be. 6. In the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, the lower appellate Court had undertaken extensive discussion not only of the principles governing the matter but also the notifications issued in respect of the properties in the area, from time to time. Though in a revision it is difficult to undertake a fresh appreciation of the evidence, certain aspects, which are unequivocal in nature, deserve to be taken into account. 7. It is on record that the subject matter of the present document was purchased by the vendor of the lst respondent in the year 1998 for a consideration of Rs.300/- per square yard. The transaction was evidenced by document No. 1723/98. The present sale took place 5 years thereafter. The consideration was shown at Rs.1,000/- per square yard, which is almost three and half times i.e. 350%, over and above the value, that prevailed in the year 1998. No factors, which indicate a higher development were shown in the order passed by the 1st petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the value shown by the lst respondent in her document at Rs.1000/- per square yard does not reflect the correct state of affairs. No factors, which indicate a higher development were shown in the order passed by the 1st petitioner. 8. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the value shown by the lst respondent in her document at Rs.1000/- per square yard does not reflect the correct state of affairs. Further, the extent involved is only 60 square yards and it is too difficult to imagine that a fabulous structure of great commercial value can be brought upon it. The record discloses that it is located in a lane abutting the main road. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --X--