Judgment :- While W.P.No.24530 of 2006 challenges the order of the appellate authority viz., the first respondent dated 16.05.2006, by which the first respondent has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 47(A)(5) of the Indian Stamp Act against the original order passed by the second respondent on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation of two months, W.P.No.34845 of 2007 is filed by the same petitioner for direction against the second respondent-Sub-Registrar to return the Document No.3272 of 1996. 2. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the lands situated at S.No.388/1B, measuring 0.65 cents and S.No.388, measuring 0.63 cents in Ayanampakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District by a registered sale deed as Document No.3272 of 1996 and 3273 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Registrars Office at Konnur. After registration, the document was referred under Section 47(A)(5) of the Indian Stamp Act and the second respondent in W.P.No.24530 of 2006 has ultimately passed an order on 03.05.2005 and demanded the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,48,524/-. It is further stated by the petitioner that the order copy has not been communicated to her. However, after the petitioner approaching the second respondent in W.P.No.34845 of 2007, it was stated that the same has been sent by post and ultimately after receipt of the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the appellate authority on 22.03.2006 and the first respondent in W.P.No.24530 of 2006 has rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation as stated above. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in M.Kaliammal V. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) Salem-Namakkal-Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri at Salem and another reported in 2005 (3) CTC 529 in paragraph-4 has held as follows: "A Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment Indira Devi V. Inspector General of Registration, 2005 (1) CTC 733 , dealing with a similar situation had held that since the provisions of the Limitation Act is not excluded in matters relating to filing of an appeal, Section 5 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. Having that law laid down by this Court, We perused the entire papers placed before us. Having that law laid down by this Court, We perused the entire papers placed before us. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by the first respondent, which is challenged before the second respondent, viz., demanding difference in payment of stamp duty payable on the ground of under valuation we are of the firm opinion that ends of justice definitely requires the delay in filing the appeal, whether it is 50 days or six months, to be condone. We find from the materials placed on record that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs. The second respondent is directed to take up the appeal on file and dispose it of in accordance with law. CMP No.7257 of 2005 is closed." 4. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the first respondent in W.P.No.24530 of 2006 viz., the appellate authority has not taken note of the powers of Section 5 of the Limitation Act while deciding the appeal under Section 47(A)(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. 5. In such view of the matter, the impugned order in W.P.24530 of 2006 stands set aside with a direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits provided the petitioner presents the appeal papers within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order making it clear that the appellate authority shall pass orders on the appeal within a period of eight weeks thereafter on merits and without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. 6. Since the Document has already been registered, there is no authority or power or jurisdiction on the first respondent in W.P.No.34845 of 2007 to retain the document and the same has to be returned to the petitioner. Accordingly, W.P.NO.34845 of 2007 is disposed of with following directions:- i) The second respondent – Sub-Registrar shall return the documents registered as Document No.3272 of 1996 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order making an endorsement on the original document to the effect that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act are pending. ii) The second respondent – Sub-Registrar shall make necessary entries in the register maintained regarding the pendency of 47-A proceedings in respect of the documents subject matter of the registration so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate for the benefit of the purchasers. iii) Pending, final decision in respect of the valuation under Section 47-A(i), as per Section 47-A(4) there shall be a charge over the properties in favour of the Government in respect of the unpaid valued of the stamp duty. iv) After the entire proceedings under Section 47-A are completed, on production of the original documents by the petitioners, the second respondent – Sub-Registrar shall make necessary endorsement removing the earlier endorsement clearly stating that the entire amount of stamp duty under the documents have been paid in full and return the same. v) After such endorsement, the second respondent – Sub -Registrar shall make necessary entry of the completion of 47-A proceedings in the register maintained by them so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate. 7. Accordingly, W.P.No.24530 of 2006 stands allowed with directions as stated above and W.P.No.34845 of 2007 stands ordered subject to the above conditions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos. 1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 are closed.