Judgment :- 1. The appellant purchased the punja land in S.Nos.575/5c1, 575/5c2, 575/6a and 575/6b measuring an extent of 2 acres 1 cent in Puthoor Village in Virudhunagar District. The purchase also includes 3/5th share in the well situated in S.Nos.575/5a2 and 575/5b1 measuring an extent of 4 cents along with 3 HP Electric Motor Pumpset. The purchase was made by a sale deed in Document No.1728/2002 before the Sub-Registrar, Setthur in Virudhunagar District. The sale deed also discloses that 50 coconut trees that could not give any yield, were on the land. The sale consideration was Rs.65,000/- and the appellant paid a stamp duty of Rs.7,600/-. The registration of documents took place on 16.07.2001. 2. While so, it seems that the third respondent, Setthur Sub-Registrar Office, Virudhunagar District, referred the document to the second respondent under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act to fix a proper market value of the property as the document was registered at undervalue. 3. Based on the said reference, the second respondent issued a notice dated 10.03.2003 stating that the market value of the property that was purchased by the appellant would be Rs.12,49,549/-, but the sale deed shows as if the value was only Rs.65,000/-. If the value is taken as Rs.12,49,549/- , the appellant should pay the balance amount of stamp duty at Rs.1,42,352/-. He was directed to make any objections, if any, on the aforesaid conclusion within a period of 21 days. It is further stated in the said notice that the aforesaid valuation does not include coconut trees, well and pumpset, and that the value of those items would be determined later. 4. The appellant gave replies dated 27.03.2003 and 03.05.2004 to the second respondent stating that the land is 9 Kms away from Puthoor village and the land is only an agricultural land and hence he requested the authority to visit the land and to assess the value of the land and that only thereafter, he is prepared to pay any deficit stamp duty, if any. While so, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.02.2009 stating that he fixed the market value of the land and other items purchased by the appellant at Rs.3,51,000/- and he should have paid the stamp duty of Rs.42,200/-. 5. But, according to the second respondent, the appellant paid only Rs.7,600/- and hence the balance amount of Rs.34,600/- shall be paid. 5. But, according to the second respondent, the appellant paid only Rs.7,600/- and hence the balance amount of Rs.34,600/- shall be paid. 6. At this juncture itself, it is relevant to note that neither the notice nor the impugned order gives any reason for the conclusion of the second respondent. It is a mere ipse dixit of the second respondent without any reason whatsoever. While so, the appellant filed a statutory appeal to the first respondent Inspector General of Registration against the aforesaid order of the second respondent. 7. The first respondent directed the District Registrar, Virudhunagar to give a report on the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the District Registrar sent his report dated 12.04.2010. Based on the aforesaid report dated 12.04.2010, he fixed the value of the property at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and he also fixed Rs.200/- per coconut tree and arrived at a sum of Rs.42,000/- as the value of 210 coconut trees. He fixed the value of the well and pumpset at Rs.21,693/-. The appellant was directed to pay the stamp duty for the aforesaid value. The appellant has now questioned the order dated 24.11.2012 of the first respondent fixing the aforesaid value of the properties which he purchased. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the claim and have sought to sustain the order of the first respondent. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the second respondent dated 28.02.2009 does not give any details and he was aggrieved over the fixation of value at Rs.3,51,000/-. He further states that the first respondent has correctly did not take into account the order of the second respondent, but he has chosen to get a report from the District Registrar and the District Registrar has stated that the value of the land in the area sold per acre is between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. While the District Registrar stated that the maximum value is Rs.75,000/- per acre, the first respondent fixed the value per acre at Rs.1,00,000/- without any reason whatsoever and there is no other material other than the report of the District Registrar. He has fairly submitted that though he could ask for fixation of the value of the land at Rs.60,000/- or in between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per acre, this Court could fix the maximum amount of Rs.75,000/- to put an end to the litigation. He has fairly submitted that though he could ask for fixation of the value of the land at Rs.60,000/- or in between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per acre, this Court could fix the maximum amount of Rs.75,000/- to put an end to the litigation. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the first respondent is not correct in valuing for 210 coconut trees, since he purchased only the land with 50 coconut trees as per the sale deed and he has taken me through the sale deed. In the sale deed, it is stated as follows: (“Tamil”) ie., 50 coconut trees that were available at the time of purchase were young and did not give any yield, and after the purchase of the land, he planted further coconut trees and therefore, the first respondent could not value those newly planted coconut trees. He has brought to my notice that he purchased the land in 2001, while the first respondent passed the order after 11 years and much water had flown thereafter. Hence he wanted this Court to restrict the valuation of coconut trees to 50 instead of 210. 12. As far as the valuation of the first respondent with regard to other items, viz. the land on which the well was dug, the value of the well and the value of the pumpset, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not questioning the same. He has submitted that though he could assail those valuations, he wants to buy peace as the small peasant is fighting the litigation for more than a decade. 13. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the order of the first respondent and this Court can confirm the same. However, there is no answer from the learned Government Advocate for fixing the value per acre at Rs.1,00,000/- by the first respondent, while the District Registrar has stated that the value of the land in the area was sold between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/- at the relevant time. 14. However, there is no answer from the learned Government Advocate for fixing the value per acre at Rs.1,00,000/- by the first respondent, while the District Registrar has stated that the value of the land in the area was sold between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.75,000/- at the relevant time. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, particularly in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that he could simply agree with the valuation as made by the District Registrar, except as to the number of coconut trees, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal could be disposed of as per the report of the District Registrar. Hence, I am of the view that the order of the first respondent can be modified to the extent by fixing the value per acre at Rs.75,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further the value of the coconut trees are fixed at Rs.10,000/- (for 50 trees) instead of Rs.42,000/- valued for 210 trees. As far as the valuation in respect of the well and the pumpset, fixed by the first respondent at Rs.21,693/- is concerned, as stated above, the appellant has no objection for fixing the value of the land on which the well was dug, value of the well and pumpset at Rs.1,800/-, Rs.18,093/- and Rs.1,800/- respectively. The appellant does not dispute those valuations. 15. Therefore, in the result, (a) The valuation for the 2 acres 1 cent of land comes to Rs.2,50,750/-, if it is valued at Rs.75,000/- per acre. (b) As far as the number of coconut trees are concerned, it is confined to only 50, since the sale deed makes it clear that there were only 50 coconut trees at the time of purchase. There is no other evidence to establish that at the time of sale, there were 210 coconut trees. Therefore, 50 coconut trees are valued at Rs.10,000/- @ Rs.200/- per coconut tree. (c) As far as the value of the land on which the well was dug, the value of the well and the value of the pumpset fixed at Rs.21,693/- by the first respondent is concerned, there is no dispute since the lands are valued as per the report of the District Registrar. Hence, the same is confirmed. 16. Now, the total value is fixed at Rs.1,82,443/-. Hence, the same is confirmed. 16. Now, the total value is fixed at Rs.1,82,443/-. The appellant shall pay the stamp duty for the aforesaid amount after adjusting the sum of Rs.7,600/- which he already paid as stamp duty. The appellant shall also pay @ 2% interest as ordered by the first respondent up to 31.08.2010 for the aforesaid amount and thereafter, the appellant shall pay @ 1% to be calculated till the date of payment. 17. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is modified, as stated above. The second respondent is directed to fix the stamp duty payable by the appellant on the aforesaid fixation and pass appropriate order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.