Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the Order dated 18.07.2005, passed in No.61119/N1/2003, on the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai to set aside the same. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant purchased the property bearing Door No.91 (Old No.32), Acharappan Street, Chennai-1, comprised in R.S.No.6209, situated within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai, the third respondent herein and registered as document No.1097 of 2002, for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. The appellant submits that since the guideline value was more than the actual sale consideration, the third respondent has referred the matter to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), the second respondent herein under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamps Act for determining the correct market value of the property. Further, the appellant submits that thereafter no communication was received either from the second respondent or from the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the first respondent herein. Therefore, the appellant has sent a letter to the second and third respondents for necessary action to release the document. But, both the respondents have not replied for the letter. Thereafter, the appellant has sent reminders to both of them on 06.03.2003, 21.04.2003 and 11.09.2003 for release of the documents and pass Order under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamps Act. The appellant further submits that even then, both of them have neither sent any communication nor passed any order. 3. Further, the appellant submits that since the second and third respondents have not issued any order for release of document, the appellant was forced to file writ petition in W.P.No.29324 of 2003, before the Honble High Court for direction to issue the order copy of pre-decisional and post-decisional orders, if any passed. 4. Further, the appellant submits that as per the Order passed by the Honble High Court in W.P.No.29324 of 2003, the second respondent has sent Form-I and Form-II on 20.11.2003. As per the Forms I and II, the second respondent has fixed the guide line value at Rs.1,621/- per sq.ft., thereby raised the additional stamp duty of Rs.3,09,595/-. The second respondent has not given any opportunity to the appellant to file his objections. After receipt of the Forms I and II, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent disputing the guide line value derived by the second respondent. The second respondent has not given any opportunity to the appellant to file his objections. After receipt of the Forms I and II, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent disputing the guide line value derived by the second respondent. But, the first respondent confirmed the Order of the second respondent without considering the grounds raised by the appellant before the first respondent. The appellant further submits that the property is situated in the residential area. In the Registrar Office, the guide line values are enhancing 10 to 15% every year without considering the actual market value of the property in the said street. 5. The appellant further submits that the respondents have not justified in levying 2% interest from the date of passing the order by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) when the said Order was communicated only on 20.11.2003. The appellant submits that immediately after receipt of the Order from the second respondent, the appellant sent letter on 15.12.2003 for issue of the Challan for payment of the stamp duty under protest and reminder letter was sent on 10.04.2004 for issue of the challan to enable the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and get back the document under protest pending the above appeal. Again on 20.07.2004 a letter was sent to the second respondent for issue of the challan. Since, the second respondent has not cared for the letter sent by the appellant, the appellant filed a petitioner before the first respondent for directing the second respondent to issue the challan for payment of the deficit stamp duty. As per the direction of the first respondent by its Order dated 20.07.2005, the respondent has issued the challan towards deficit stamp duty. The appellant submits that immediately after receipt of the challan, he paid the deficit stamp duty under protest pending the appeal. Therefore, in such circumstances, no interest can be levied on the disputed stamp duty. Further, the appellant submits that the Order of the first respondent is patently violation of the Indian Stamps Act. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the sale deed had been registered on 07.03.2003 about seven years back and the deficit stamp duty is still pending. Further, the learned counsel argued that in the said transaction there is no fraud involved. The stamp duty had been paid as per the property value. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the sale deed had been registered on 07.03.2003 about seven years back and the deficit stamp duty is still pending. Further, the learned counsel argued that in the said transaction there is no fraud involved. The stamp duty had been paid as per the property value. There is no collusion between the appellant and his vendors/erstwhile owners. Further, the learned counsel argued that the second respondent without giving any opportunity to the appellant passed the order, which is violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant paid the stamp duty as per ruling market value, as such the appellant has not evaded righteous stamp duty. The learned senior counsel further argued that 24% levy of interest demanded by the respondents is unjustified. There is neither any under-valuation in the said transaction. Several communications sent to the respondents for release of the documents at the earliest. Instead of releasing the appellants sale deed, the respondents passed order stating and demanding deficit of stamp duty, this order coming without any inquiry, which is a violation of natural justice. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant was not provided with any opportunity in determining the deficit of stamp duty. In accordance with the principles of natural justice, opportunity should be provided to the appellant in order to enable him to establish his case/right, which was lacking in this case. Hence, this Court hereby directs the first respondent/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to initiate an inquiry in the presence of the appellant and decide the matter on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Therefore, the Order dated 18.07.2005, passed in No.61119/N1/2003, by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, the first respondent herein is set aside. 8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above direction and the Order dated 18.07.2005, passed in No.61119/N1/2003, by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, the first respondent herein, is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.