JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 12.01.2009, passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.46641/No.2/2008, consequently setting aside the order dated 30.06.2005, passed by the second respondent in S.R.No.705/98/TGE and all further proceedings thereon and direct the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode to release the document No.1754 of 1998, after admitting the said document by accepting the value as per the Guideline value shown in the Sub-Registrar office, Tiruchengode at the relevant time when the document No.1754 of 1998 was presented for registration. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant had purchased the landed property under document No.1754 of 1998 for an extent of 99 Cents, situated in Survey Nos.21/2 and 23/1 at Kailasampalayam Village. The said document had been registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode as document No.1754 of 1998. 3. After registration, the second respondent herein had issued an order dated 30.06.2005, in S.R.No.705/98/TGE, directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,44,995/- as deficit of stamp duty, stating that the landed property per sq.ft., was valued at Rs.87.30 and as such the deficit stamp duty has to be paid. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.06.2005, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the first respondent herein and the first respondent had also modified the order passed by the second respondent, by order dated 12.01.2009, passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.46641/No.2/2008 and directed the appellant to pay Rs.60/- per sq.ft., instead of Rs.87.30/- as fixed by the second respondent herein. 5. The highly competent counsel for the appellant has argued that the schedule mentioned property is situated at Kailasampalayam Village in Tiruchengode Taluk in Survey Nos.22/1, measuring an extent of 3.06 Acres and that this is the first item of the property as per the sale deed and in Survey No.22/1, an extent of 0.20.2/5 Acres. Both lands had been classified as dry lands. Initially, the land was purchased in the name of one A.Murugesan, son of Angamuthu, who had purchased the property from one Pandian and his wife Amuthasundari under the registered sale deed bearing registration No.154 of 1975 and the same had been registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode. The land has been classified as cultivable dry land. Initially, the land was purchased in the name of one A.Murugesan, son of Angamuthu, who had purchased the property from one Pandian and his wife Amuthasundari under the registered sale deed bearing registration No.154 of 1975 and the same had been registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode. The land has been classified as cultivable dry land. In order to prove the same, the Village Administrative Officer, attached to the Kailasampalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, certified that the landed property situated in Survey Nos.22/1 and 23/1 at Kailasampalayam Village was agricultural land. Further, the Village Administrative Officer had issued land tax receipts in which the land has been classified as agricultural land. The receipt was dated 12.03.2009. From the time that the land had been purchased in the year 2000, the land is being used as agricultural land, but all the respondents suo motu demanded the stamp duty on sq.ft., basis, without any supporting documentary evidence. 6. The very competent counsel has further submitted that the Sub-Registrar had issued a notice on 25.10.2002 demanding additional stamp duty of a sum of Rs.4,44,995/-in which the appellant had sent a reply stating that the land is being used for agricultural purposes. Further, he has submitted that from the revenue records namely Chitta and Adangal, it clearly discloses that the appellant is cultivating crops over the land. Further, the appellant is cultivating dry land crop namely Cholam. The impugned orders had been passed by the respondents without following the procedures contemplated under the acts and rules. 7. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have not considered the objections, reply and representations made by the appellant herein. The Village Administrative Officer, who is the competent authority to certify about the nature of use of lands had certified that the appellant's lands i.e., an extent of 99 cents, situated in Survey Nos.21/1 and 23/1 of Kailasapalayam Pudur Village is an agricultural dry land and that the adjoining lands are also agricultural lands belonging to his father and brothers. The appellant had purchased the said land as per the guideline value and market value fixed by the Government, which is available at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode. 8. The appellant had purchased the said land as per the guideline value and market value fixed by the Government, which is available at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the Special Collector (Stamps) had fixed the land value for an extent of 99 Cents for a sum of Rs.37,68,218/- whereas the value of the adjacent land in Survey Nos.22/1, 21/1, which is identical and similar to that of the appellant's land for an extent of 3 Acres and 26 Cents in the same area, is Rs.4,08,300/- and the stamp duty of Rs.43,200/-had been paid by the purchaser. The revenue authorities had collected kist for the said land from the appellant since he had used it for agricultural purpose. Hence, the learned counsel expects the Court to set aside the impugned orders of the respondents herein. 9. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the appellant's neighbour's land, a pucca building has been raised, which is being used for residential purpose. Further, there is an approach road to the appellant's land. Further, some portion of the adjacent lands have been converted into house plots and these are situated in Survey Nos.125 and 126 in the same village. As such, the appellant's land value is increased since both the appellant's lands and adjacent lands are one and the same and the nature of soil is also the same. Therefore, there is no discrimination on their part for changing additional stamp duty. 10. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that the said land is very close to Tiruchengode Town and the lands are being converted for residential purpose and as such the land value is increased. Hence, the first respondent's impugned order is found to be fit enough for being operated. 11. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2, this Court is of the view that the Village Administrative Officer of the Kailasampalayam Village, wherein the appellant's land is situated had certified that the land is an agricultural land and that the appellant is raising Cholam and other dry land crops in his land. Supporting his contentions, the Village Administrative Officer had also collected land tax for cultivating the land for the Pasli year 1418. Supporting his contentions, the Village Administrative Officer had also collected land tax for cultivating the land for the Pasli year 1418. Further, in the plan submitted by the appellant and attested by the Village Administrative Officer, the appellant's lands are seen to be situated inside the portion of area highlighted in green ink and it is evident that the said land is being used for cultivation. 12. Therefore, demand of stamp duty of the respondents 2 and 3 on the basis of sq.ft., measurement is not appropriate in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.01.2009, in Proceedings No.46641/No.2/2008, on the file of the first respondent, modifying the order dated 30.06.2005, in S.R.No.705/98/DGE, on the file of the second respondent is set aside. 13. Further, this Court directs the Sub-Registrar, Tiruchengode to release the document No.1754 of 1988, forthwith to the appellant, without making any demand of stamp duty. 14. In the result, the above appeal is allowed and the order dated 12.01.2009, in Proceedings No.46641/No.2/2008, on the file of the first respondent, modifying the order dated 30.06.2005, in S.R.No.705/98/DGE, on the file of the second respondent is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.