Judgment :- T.SUDANTHIRAM, J. The appellant has purchased the plot bearing No. 120 at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 098, in Pattravakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk in Tiruvallur District by means of registered sale deed dated 10. 2003 for a consideration of Rs. 26,75, 000/-. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. The document was duly registered as document NO. 4275 of 2003. But the Sub-Registrar referred the said document for adjudication under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground that the document had been undervalued. Incidentally, the Sub – Registrar declined to return the document to the appellant. 2. Thereafter the appellant has filed W.P. No. 34812 of 2004 before this Court and this Court passed an order directing the second respondent to return the document pending disposal of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act by the second respondent. Accordingly, the document was returned to the appellant on 112. 2004. 3. Subsequently, the second respondent held enquiry to find out the actual market value of the property covered under the sale deed. The second respondent thereafter Issued the tentative order fixing the market value of the property at Rs.371/- per sq.feet. The second respondent calculated the deficit stamp duty at Rs.3,31,825/-. On receipt of the said tentative order, the appellant submitted his objection. 4. Having considered the same, the second respondent by his proceedings in 327/03/A4 dated 112. 2003 confirmed the tentative market value fixed earlier and directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,31,825/- towards deficit stamp duty by fixing the market value at Rs.371/- per sq. feet. 5. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred an appeal to the first respondent. By order dated 30.11.2004, 7328/N1/2004, the first respondent rejected the said appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with this appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 7. It is the contention of the appellant that the property in question is situated only in SIDCO Industrial Estate and not in Ambattur Industrial Estate. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on a letter No. 11064/RTI/2008 dated 18. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 7. It is the contention of the appellant that the property in question is situated only in SIDCO Industrial Estate and not in Ambattur Industrial Estate. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on a letter No. 11064/RTI/2008 dated 18. 2008 received from SIDCO Industrial Estate under Eight to Information Act wherein the SIDCO Industrial Estate has informed the appellant that the entire area covered under Ambattur Industrial Estate belongs to the Government and SIDCO Industrial Estate does not form part of Ambattur Industrial Estate at all. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further relies on the guideline value by a communication from District Registrar by his proceedings letter No. 20534/C3/L1/2008 dated 6. 2008, wherein under the Right to Information Act, the District Registrar had given information regarding the guideline value of the various properties situated in Pattravakkam village, Chennai –600 098. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as Ambattur Industrial Estate is concerned, the guideline value of the house site is Rs.436/- per sq. feet, where as the guideline value in respect, of the other plots in Pattravakkam Village does not exceed Rs.290/- per sq. feet. He would further submit that as per the guideline value, the property in question would fetch only Rs.142/- per sq. feet. The learned counsel for the appellant would therefore submit that without making proper inspection of the property, without locating the property and without reference to the guideline value the respondents have fixed the market value of the property at Rs.371- per sq. feet in an arbitrary manner. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it is not known how the respondents have arrived at Rs.371/- per sq.feet. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would stuotly oppose the appeal. According to him, in the description of the property in the document, it is indicated that the property forms part of Ambattur Industrial Estate and that is the reason why the guideline value of the Ambattur Industrial Estate had been taken into account. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. As of now, there is no controversy that the entire Ambattur Industrial Estate belongs to the Government and there is no property owned by any private individual in the said estate. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. As of now, there is no controversy that the entire Ambattur Industrial Estate belongs to the Government and there is no property owned by any private individual in the said estate. It is also not in controversy now that the property covered under the sale deed is situated only in SIDCO industrial Estate that is in Pattravakkam Village. A Perusal of the guideline values prescribed for the lands in Pattravakkam Village other than Ambattur Industrial Estate would make it crystal clear that the highest market value prescribed is Rs. 290/- per sq. feet for the house site at Milk Farm Road. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the land in question situated at Periyar Salai, where according to the guideline value, the value is Rs.142/- per square feet. The above details would shows that the second respondent did not consider the relevant materials while deciding the market value of the property. Instead of this, it is very obvious that the second respondent had misdirected himself to take the guideline value for property situated in Ambattur Industrial Estate as the market value for the property in question. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent deserves to be set aside. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The final order passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent is set aside. The case is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. While doing so, the second respondent is directed to issue notice to the appellant to hold appropriate enquiry visit property, find out the location and then to pass appropriate order. In any event, the said exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed.