JUDGMENT : T. Raja, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 2. Mrs. S. Kanagamani has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned proceedings dated 16.3.2017 passed in Letter No. 28983/U1/13 by the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Chief Revenue Controlling Officer, Chennai. 3. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant purchased an extent of 2 acres, 22 1/2 cents in Survey No. 268/4 of Nagarpalayam Village falling within the Sub-Registrar's Office, Mallasamudram, she paid the stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and the said sale deed was registered in Document No. 1712 of 2007. Since they are all agricultural lands, the first respondent has wrongly treated the subject-matter of the land as house site and fixed the land value at Rs. 27/- per sq.ft., without conducting any enquiry. On the date of registration, the appellant paid the requisite stamp duty that was accepted by the Sub-Registrar. Mr. N. Manokaran also submitted that when two sale deeds were registered, one bearing Document No. 1902 of 2007 relating to the same survey number and another sale deed bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007 relating to the very same survey number before the very same Sub-Registrar's Office, an order was passed on 27.9.2007 and the sale deed in respect of Document No. 1902 of 2007 was released. In respect of another sale deed bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007 alone, ironically, a doubt has been raised with regard to the value. When a reference was made under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for determining the value of the said property, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem, in his order dated 27.9.2007, fixed the value for the said property at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The appellant, accepting the value fixed for the two documents at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre, paid the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, after receiving the same, the respondents released both the documents to the appellant. 3,00,000/- per acre. The appellant, accepting the value fixed for the two documents at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre, paid the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, after receiving the same, the respondents released both the documents to the appellant. Surprisingly, after a huge delay of 5 years, 9 months, on the footing that the Accountant General, Chennai citing audit report No. AG(C and RA) ISR IV/Regn./20-26/11-12/94 dated 8.6.2011 informed the respondents that there was a loss of income to the Government because of the aforesaid value determination, directed the respondents to take appropriate action under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, on the basis of the said audit report, a notice was issued to the appellant on 26.6.2013 by the Inspector General of Registration to submit reasons as to why the deficit stamp duty and registration should not be collected from the appellant at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq.ft. On receipt of the same, the appellant submitted her reply dated 29.7.2013 stating that the power of suo motu action under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act is barred by time. Ignoring the same, the impugned order has been passed. 4. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the impugned order exercising the suo motu power under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, further submitted that when the sale deed was registered on 22.8.2007 and thereafter when the second respondent also has passed the order dated 27.9.2007 releasing the document, it is not open to the first respondent to initiate suo motu proceedings on 26.6.2013 that is barred by a huge delay, namely, 9 months beyond 5 years. In support of his submissions, he has also placed heavy reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of N. Mani and another v. Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Chennai and others, 2018 (5) CTC 265 , wherein it has been held that the notice issued beyond five years exercising the suo motu power is barred by law. Explaining further, Mr. Manokaran stated that in N. Mani's case (supra), this Court, taking note of two important dates, held that when the Original Authority passed the order dated 3.10.2017, the five years period expired on 3.10.2012, therefore, the notice under Section 47-A(6) issued on 28.5.2013 was admittedly beyond a period of five years. Explaining further, Mr. Manokaran stated that in N. Mani's case (supra), this Court, taking note of two important dates, held that when the Original Authority passed the order dated 3.10.2017, the five years period expired on 3.10.2012, therefore, the notice under Section 47-A(6) issued on 28.5.2013 was admittedly beyond a period of five years. In the present case also, he has pleaded that when the second respondent has passed the order on 27.9.2007 releasing the document, the initiation of suo motu proceedings by the first respondent on 26.6.2013 is hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. Referring to yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai Collectorate, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai v. Thajunnisa and others, (2015) 6 MLJ 129 , he again stated that if any insufficient stamp duty was payable, the first respondent shall exercise the suo motu power under Section 47-A(6) within five years. In the present case, as the first respondent has initiated the suo motu exercise only after 5 years, 9 months from the date of the order passed by the second respondent, the impugned order is liable to go. Interestingly, he has also stated that when two sale deeds were registered on 22.8.2007 one bearing Document No. 1902 of 2007 relating to the same survey number fixing the value at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre, the sale deed dated 22.8.2007 bearing Document No. 1902 of 2007 was released on 27.9.2007. But peculiarly, another sale deed registered on 22.8.2007 bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007 relating to the very same survey number, has become the subject-matter of the suo motu proceedings that cannot be accepted. That also shows the non-application of mind of the Inspector General of Registration. 6. Mr. T.M. Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, restating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by them, stated that when the Accountant General, Chennai in his audit report dated 8.6.2011 informed the respondents that there was a loss of income to the Government because of the above said value determination and again directed to take appropriate action under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, based on the said audit report, a notice was issued to the appellant on 26.6.2013 asking her to submit reasons as to why the deficit stamp duty and registration should not be collected at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq.ft., and the appellant also submitted her reply on 29.7.2013. When once she submitted the reply, she has accepted the jurisdiction, therefore, she cannot plead the bar of limitation. 7. But this Court is unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The reason being that when two sale deeds were presented in respect of Survey No. 268/4 of Nagarpalayam Village, both were registered on 22.8.2007 and one sale deed bearing Document No. 1902 of 2007 was released by the second respondent on 27.9.2007. In respect of another sale deed dated 22.8.2007 bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007 that was also released on 27.9.2007, it is not known how the Accountant General can raise an objection in the audit report in respect of only one document bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007 that too beyond a period of five years as contemplated under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act and can issue the notice on 26.6.2013. The reason being that when the law is well settled that the suo motu proceedings cannot be initiated beyond a period of five years, as it is barred by limitation, the issuance of notice on 26.6.2013 by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai calling upon the appellant to submit her reply as to why the deficit stamp duty and registration should not be collected at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq.ft., is wholly unsustainable in law. This Court, in similar circumstances, in the case of N. Mani and another v. Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Chennai and others, 2018 (5) CTC 265 has held that the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority has no power to initiate suo motu proceedings after five years from the date of the order passed by the Original Authority. As mentioned above, when the Original Authority passed the order on 27.9.2007, the initiation of suo motu proceedings on 26.6.2013 is without jurisdiction. 8. Even when a similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai Collectorate, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai v. Thajunnisa and others, (2015) 6 MLJ 129 , it has been held that the suo motu power as contemplated under Section 47-A(3) was out of bounds of limitation period as specified thereunder. In the said case, when the suo motu proceedings were initiated beyond a period of 5 years, namely, after 5 1/2 years, the Division Bench has set aside the initiation of suo motu proceedings under Section 47-A(3). Last but not the least, as mentioned above, when the appellant has registered two sale deeds dated 22.8.2007, one bearing Document No. 1902 of 2007 and another bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007, it is not known why the suo motu proceedings have been belatedly exercised only against the sale deed dated 22.8.2007 bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007. It may be for the reason that the Accountant General in his audit report has considered only the sale deed dated 22.8.2007 bearing Document No. 1712 of 2007. In any event, since the initiation of suo motu power under Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act is beyond a period of 5 years, they are unsustainable in law, hence, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 14192 of 2019 is closed. No costs.