Judgment :- (Elipe Dharmarao, J.) Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is one and the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondents herein have registered sale deeds in document Nos.1172/2006, 1170/2006 and 1173/2006 respectively on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tiruppur. According to the respondents, even though the guideline value is much lower, they have registered the documents by valuing the property at Rs.30 lakhs per acre and they have also paid the stamp fee accordingly. But, the Sub-Registrar, Tiruppur had initiated proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act and fixed the value as Rs.996/- per sq.ft. Thereafter, the documents were referred to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore for determination of the market value of the property and to collect the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Coimbatore has issued notices in Form-I. Before the said Authority, the respondents herein have contended, by filing their objections, that the document properties are vacant lands, without any basic amenities and located far away from the main road and they have registered the documents at 20 times more than the value fixed by the Government. 3. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, by his order dated 21.3.2006, has observed that the value fixed at Rs.996/-per sq.ft. by the Sub Registrar is a fanciful one and assessing various other aspects, he has fixed the value at Rs.275/- per sq.ft., and directed the respondents herein to pay the difference amount. Aggrieved against the said orders passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, the respondents herein have filed appeals before the present appellant/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, who also, by his order dated 11.5.2006, has affirmed the order of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and had fixed the value at Rs.275/= and directed the respondents herein to pay the balance amount. As against the said orders of the appellant, the respondents herein have preferred C.M.A.Nos.3282 to 3284 of 2006 before this Court and they are still pending. 4. As against the said orders of the appellant, the respondents herein have preferred C.M.A.Nos.3282 to 3284 of 2006 before this Court and they are still pending. 4. While things stood thus, the Government, in the Budget Speech for 2007-2008 has announced that there are about 27,000 registered documents pending determination of correct market value for a long time and that the stamp duty due to the Government from these documents at that time was estimated at Rs.400 crores and with a view to enable the Government to receive the blocked amount without any further delay and at the same time, to enable the parties also to avail stamp duty concession and get back the registered documents after payment of concessional stamp duty, it will introduce a new Scheme. Accordingly, the Government has brought in G.O.Ms.No.95 Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) Department, dated 23.4.2007, thereby announcing a Samadhan Scheme. 5. For better appreciation, we shall now extract para Nos.4 to 6 of the said G.O., which read as under: "4. Accordingly, the IGR (Inspector General of Registration) in his letter fourth read above (in Letter No.13264/C2/2007, dated 23.3.2007), in pursuance of the above announcement, has proposed that a Samadhan Scheme may be implemented with the following stipulations: (a) a remission of 40% of the difference of stamp duty and registration fee between the stamp duty/registration fee already paid and the duty/fee chargeable as per the guideline value can be given. (b) The scheme shall be made applicable in respect of instruments which are pending as on 22.3.2007 with the DRO (Stamps)/SDC (Stamps) under Sections 47A(1), 47A(3) and 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of market value and in respect of instruments registered and pending with the registering officer as on 22.3.2007 for referring to the Collector under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 47-A and sub-section (4) of section 19B of the said Act for determination of market value; (c) The Scheme may not be made applicable in respect of instruments which are pending as on 22.3.2007 under section 47A(5), 47A(6) and 47A(10), since the market value has already been fixed by the Special Deputy Collectors (Stamps) and District Revenue Officers (Stamps) under Section 47A(1), in respect of them. (d) The deficit stamp duty may be collected in the sub-registrar office itself. (d) The deficit stamp duty may be collected in the sub-registrar office itself. (e) The scheme shall be in operation for a period of three months from the date on which the scheme comes into force. 6 The Government, after careful consideration, have decided to implement a Samadhan Scheme by giving a remission of 40% (forty percent) of the difference of stamp duty between the duty already paid and what is chargeable on the value of the properties (both for land and buildings including chargeable assets) as proposed by the registering officer on the basis of guideline register in respect of land and the PWD Schedule of Rates in respect of buildings. The Government issue the following instructions in this regard: (a) The stamp duty remission shall be given in respect of instruments pending as on 22.3.2007 under Sections 47A(1), 47A(3), 47A(5), 47A(6), 47A(10) and 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of market value and also in respect of instruments registered and pending with the registering officer a son 22.3.2007 for referring to the Collector under sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 47-A and sub-section (4) of Section 19B of the said Act for determination of market value. (b) The scheme shall be in operation for a period of three months from the date of notification. (c) The deficit stamp duty shall be collected in the Sub Registrar office concerned. 7. As regards registration fee, the Government direct that in as much as stamp duty is reduced by issue of notification under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the registration fee has to be levied on the reduced value for which stamp duty has to be paid according to Article 1(b) of the Table of Fees of the Registration Act, 1908 and hence it is not necessary to issue a separate notification for remitting the registration fee." 8. Pursuant to the said Scheme announced by the Government, the respondents herein have approached the appellant herein to avail the concession granted in the said Scheme, offering to pay the value at Rs.275/-per sq.ft., but the appellant herein has rejected their applications on the ground that they have to pay the differential amount as Rs.996/= per sq.ft., which was originally fixed by the Sub-Registrar. Aggrieved by the said action of the appellant herein, the respondents herein have filed W.P.Nos.19677 to 19679 of 2007 and since a learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petitions by a common order, the Inspector General of Registration has come forward to prefer these writ appeals. 9. The sole argument advanced on the part of the appellant/State by the learned Special Government Pleader is that the benefit of the Scheme would be available only to the guideline value for the property in question available in the register i.e. Rs.996/= per sq.ft., which is the value proposed by the Registering Officer in the reference made by him under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. 10. But, the undisputed fact is that the decision of the Registering Authority, fixing the value at Rs.996/= per sq.ft. was challenged by the respondents herein before the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Coimbatore, who has fixed the same at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. and the further appeals preferred by the respondents before the appellant, against the said order passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, were rejected by the appellant, thus confirming and affirming the order of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore in fixing the value at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. Though this finding of the appellant is also challenged by the respondents herein by filing CMA.Nos. 3282 to 3284 of 2006 before this Court and the same are still pending, the respondents, with a view to avail the benefits notified in the Samadhan Scheme have submitted themselves before the authorities concerned, accepting the value as Rs.275/= per sq.ft. But, the authorities have taken a flimsy stand that to avail the benefits of the Scheme, the respondents have to pay the guideline value at Rs.996/= per sq.ft., which is the value fixed by the original registering authority. We commented this stand of the authorities flimsy because of the reason that the said decision of the original registering authority is not in existence since it has been modified by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and by the appellant himself, by fixing the value at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. Admittedly, this order of the appellant herein has been challenged by the respondents before this Court and no appeal or anything of that sort has been filed by any authority as against such a fixation of the guideline value at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. Admittedly, this order of the appellant herein has been challenged by the respondents before this Court and no appeal or anything of that sort has been filed by any authority as against such a fixation of the guideline value at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and the appellant himself. Therefore, the value of the property as has been arrived at by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and confirmed by the appellant himself has reached a finality upto the stage of Rs.275/= per sq.ft., of course, subject to the result in C.M.A.Nos.3282 to 3284 of 2006, pending on the file of this Court. In spite of pendency of the said CMAs. regarding the value of the property before this Court at the instance of the respondents themselves, they themselves have proposed to accept the said value of Rs,275/= per sq.ft., to avail the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme, which should have been properly appreciated by the appellant instead of adopting an indifferent attitude of reading between the lines of the Samadhan Scheme, which has been introduced with an avowed object of augmenting revenue to the State and also to enable the parties to avail the stamp duty concession and get back the registered documents after payment of concessional stamp duty. We fail to understand the reasoning offered by the appellant herein that the acceptance of the value at Rs.275/- per sq.ft. would cause loss to the Revenue and thereby insisting the respondents herein to pay the value at Rs.996/= per sq.ft., when the appellant himself has found the said value of Rs.996/= per sq.ft. as fancy in his proceedings dated 11.5.2006, while upholding the order passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore. 11. The other point urged on the part of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/State is that since in the documents in question already the value has been fixed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamp) under Section 47A(1), as per para No.4(c) of the said Scheme, the Scheme is not applicable to the cases of the respondents. But, it should be mentioned that para No.4 of the said G.O., deals with the proposals sent by the Inspector General of Registration and para No.5 deals with the recommendations of the Government. But, it should be mentioned that para No.4 of the said G.O., deals with the proposals sent by the Inspector General of Registration and para No.5 deals with the recommendations of the Government. While in the proposals the Inspector General of Registration has proposed that the Scheme may not be made applicable in respect of instruments wherein market value has already been fixed by the Special Deputy Collectors (Stamps) and District Revenue Officers (Stamps) under Section 47A(1), no such bar has been created by the Government in the said G.O. in its recommendations, which are illustrated in Para Nos.5. Therefore, this argument advanced on the part of the appellant does not merit consideration. 12. Thus, when there is no dispute regarding the fact that the documents in question are pending documents within the meaning of the Scheme and there is no legal bar for considering the claim of the respondents under the said Scheme, the appellant is not justified in going back from his own order of fixing the value at Rs.275/= per sq.ft. and demanding the respondents to accept the value at Rs.996/= per sq.ft., as has been fixed originally by the Registering Authority, which decision has merged with the order of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Coimbatore and the order of the appellant. 13. The learned single Judge has assessed the entire facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective and has arrived at an unerroneous conclusion of allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and hence, we see no reason to cause our interference into the well merited and considered order passed by the learned single Judge and in effect, these writ appeals filed by the State shall fail. In the result, all these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the learned single Judge within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the result, all these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the learned single Judge within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After pronouncing the above judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the writ appeals would make a mention that by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court on 8.7.2008, the appellant returned the documents to the respondent in each case, by making an endorsement that the respondent in each case shall not dispose of or alienate the property without the leave of the Court and would pray to direct the appellant to cancel the said endorsement, since the appeals filed by the State are now dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, we direct the appellant to remove the above mentioned endorsement made by him in the original documents of the respondent in each case on their presentment by the respondent in each case before the appellant, within two weeks from the date of such presentation by the respondent in each case.