As per case facts, a Petitioner's draft Agreement for Sale for a Slum Redevelopment Project had its stamp duty adjudicated. Nearly five years later, a Demand Notice was issued alleging ... a deficit in stamp duty and a penalty. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) subsequently confirmed this deficit by adding the cost of constructing the Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) to the consideration, treating it as a development agreement. The Petitioner challenged this. The question arose whether the CCRA's market value enhancement was valid and accurately applied, and if the Impugned Order was passed within the statutory six-year deadline under Section 53A of the Stamp Act. Finally, the court ruled that the CCRA's market value enhancement, by adding PTC construction costs, was arbitrary and lacked basis under relevant guidelines for slum rehabilitation projects. Furthermore, the court held that the entire revision process under Section 53A, including the final order, must be completed within six years from the original adjudication. Since the Impugned Order was passed beyond this period, it was time-barred. Consequently, the Petition was allowed, and the Impugned Order and Demand Notices were quashed.