JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, against the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 01.02.2003 pertaining to Document bearing No.721 of 1998 with the office of the 3rd respondent.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 2. The sale deed in question was executed by the appellant on 26.03.1998 and the valuation as well as the stamp duty paid were objected by the competent authority, and accordingly, 47-A(5) proceedings were initiated by the competent authority and the assessment was made by following the procedure contemplated. The authorities competent assessed the market value as Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft. taking note of the fact that the subject property situates in the prime locality of Chennai city, more specifically, nearby Egmore, and therefore, the appellant was directed to pay the deficit stamp duty as assessed by the competent authority. Not satisfied with the order, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. The Inspector General of Registration adjudicated the issue by providing opportunity to the appellant. Enquiry was conducted. The property situates at Block No.50, Marshall Road, Door Nos.124 and 125 and the extent of the land is 3 grounds and 1655 sq.ft. The Inspector General of Registration considered the value of the adjacent lands as well as the registration done in the nearby vicinity, and accordingly, made a finding which reads as under: “Tamil” 4. The authority competent found that it is a posh locality in the main city and mostly rich people are residing, big bungalows are constructed and further, important commercial premises are also found. The Government Eye Hospital, Fire Service Station, Rajarathinam Stadium, Raja Muthaiya Hall, Rani Meyyammai Hall are also situated in Marshall Road and the Egmore Railway Station is 1 km from the subject property. All these factors as well as the surrounding areas were taken into consideration and accordingly, the market value was fixed as Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the authorities have not considered the value of the property with reference to the prevailing situation. The authorities have not applied their mind. All these factors as well as the surrounding areas were taken into consideration and accordingly, the market value was fixed as Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the authorities have not considered the value of the property with reference to the prevailing situation. The authorities have not applied their mind. They have not considered the facts and circumstances with reference to the valuation rules. No copy of the reference has been furnished to the appellant. Therefore, the order impugned is infirm and is liable to be scrapped. It is contended that it is not open to the authorities to make a reference under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Statute presupposes the twin elements of under valuation and intent to defraud the revenue. In the present case, no such element was established, and therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act itself is not sustainable. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the valuation done as per the impugned order had also been paid by the appellant without any protest. 7. Considering the grounds raised by the parties to the lis on hand, it is relevant to consider Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. Rule 5 contemplates the principles for determination of market value. Accordingly, the Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional market value. Rule 5(a) deals with lands, which enumerates the materials to be taken into consideration by the authorities competent and the same reads as follows: “5. ... Rule 5 contemplates the principles for determination of market value. Accordingly, the Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional market value. Rule 5(a) deals with lands, which enumerates the materials to be taken into consideration by the authorities competent and the same reads as follows: “5. ... (a) In the case of lands – (i) classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like; (ii) classification under various tarams in the settlement register and account; (iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification; (iv) other facts which influence the valuation of the land in question; (v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which requires special consideration; (vi) value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity; (vii) average yield from the land, nearness to road and market, distance from village site, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation such as tank, wells and pumpsets; (viii) the nature of crops raised on the land; and [(ix) the use of land, domestic, commercial, industrial or agricultural purposes and also the appreciation in value when an agricultural land is being converted to a residential, commercial or an industrial land.]” Sub-Clause (iv) of Rule 5(a) denotes the other facts which influence the valuation of the land in question. Sub-Clause (vi) of Rule 5(a) enumerates the value of adjacent lands or lands in the vicinity. The rate of revenue assessment for each classification is to be considered including the classification of the land. 8. A question arises whether these factors were taken into consideration by the authorities while passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the surrounding circumstances as well as the market value prevailing in the locality were clearly considered by the authorities competent, and the findings in this regard as referred above reveals that the authorities have taken note of all those material factors. Also, the registrations done in respect of adjacent lands or the lands in the nearby vicinity were also taken into consideration. When all these factors were taken into consideration and the valuation of the subject property was fixed as Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft., this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity as such. Also, the registrations done in respect of adjacent lands or the lands in the nearby vicinity were also taken into consideration. When all these factors were taken into consideration and the valuation of the subject property was fixed as Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft., this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity as such. As admitted, the subject property is in the prime location in Chennai city, more specifically, nearby Egmore Railway Station. It is a posh locality wherein rich people are residing. All these factors were considered by the authority with reference to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, and therefore, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity as such. 9. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of The Tamil Nadu Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration & others v. A.G. Syed Mohideen [Civil Appeal No.3373 of 2020], dated 06.10.2020, held that “the High Court was in error in observing that the fixation of value in the instant case was based on future development. The valuation was based on parameters laid down in Rule 5 and as such the conclusion drawn by the High Court in respect of the issue in question was erroneous”. 10. Therefore, Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, enumerates the guiding factors and the authorities are bound to protect the revenue of the State. Once the guiding factors under Rule 5 stated above are followed, then there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities by the Courts. Certain discrepancies regarding the facts deserve no merit consideration in view of the fact that certain registrations, if any, not identified by the authorities cannot be cited for the purpose of comparison so as to undermine the value. In each case, the authorities are competent to make assessment by complying with the guiding factors as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. In some cases, the authorities could not have noticed certain discrepancies or factors suppressed by the parties, however, relying on those factors, the order passed otherwise in accordance with Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, cannot be interfered with. In some cases, the authorities could not have noticed certain discrepancies or factors suppressed by the parties, however, relying on those factors, the order passed otherwise in accordance with Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, cannot be interfered with. Thus, what is necessary for the authority is to follow the guidelines stipulated under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, and once the factors stipulated are followed and assessment is made, the same becomes final and the Courts are expected to slow in interfering in such orders passed on merits. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made out any acceptable ground to interfere with the assessment made by the competent authority under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, and thus, the impugned order dated 21.10.2005 stands confirmed and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.