Civil Revision No.611 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.611 of 1996 Date of Order: 05.08.2009 State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak ....Petitioner Versus Partap Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana challenges an order dated 22.09.1995, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, accepting the appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the order dated 01.06.1992, passed by the Special Collector, Rohtak, directing the respondents to deposit stamp duty of Rs.13625/- and registration fee Rs.237.25, total amounting to Rs.13862.25 in the Government Treasury. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Special Collector, Rohtak, is based upon Collector rates, notified by the Government from time to time and, therefore, did not require interference. It is submitted that the Collector is empowered to examine an instrument presented for registration and if it appears to be undervalued, the Collector, is competent to direct such persons to pay excess stamp duty and registration fee. It is further argued that even, if it is accepted that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction, the trial court should have remanded the matter to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the powers conferred by the Indian Stamp Act. Despite service, no one Civil Revision No.611 of 1996 -2- has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is not denied that the Collector did not make an assessment as prescribed by Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and proceeded to merely rely upon the Collector rate notified by the Government. As per the provisions of Section 47A, a Collector has to make an assessment on the basis of material placed before him and arrive at a conclusion that the document presented for registration is under valued. In the absence of any such consideration by the Collector, the appellate court did not commit any error in accepting the appeal. However, the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, while accepting the appeal and quashing the notice issued by the Collector should have remitted the matter to the Collector to decide it afresh in accordance with law. In view of what has been stated above, though the revision petition is dismissed on merits, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, is partly modified and the matter is remitted to the Collector, Rohtak, to decide the matter afresh after service of a notice upon the respondents, in accordance with law. August 5, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE