HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.R.P.No.3905 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree dated 25.07.2011 in I.A.No.571 of 2010 in O.S.No.248 of 2010, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 31 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to send the document dated 6.7.1998, to the District Registrar, Kurnool at Nandyal, for adjudication as to proper stamp to be impuounded, payment and certificate, was allowed. 2. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the petition in the lower court. 3. The brief facts are that, the suit was filed for specific performance of document dated 6.7.1998, directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of items 1 to 4 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the first petitioner, and item No.5 of petition schedule property in favour of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents assignees and legal heirs etc., from trespassing into the petition schedule properties and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by them and other ancillary reliefs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the District Collector is only the competent authority to assess the payment of stamp duty and penalty, if any payable by the party, that therefore, in the absence of any authorisation by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the District Registrar is not the competent authority to assess the stamp duty and penalty on a document to be impounded and prays to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated no objection for referring the impugned document to the District Collector, for assessment of stamp duty and penalty to be paid on the document. 6. There cannot be any dispute that unless payment of penalty or of duty as provided is paid as per Section 35 of the Act, the document cannot be looked into for any purpose. For that purpose, the document has to be referred to the District Collector as per Section 38 of the Act. Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows: “38. Instruments impounded how dealt with - (1) When the person impounding an instrument under section 33 has by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by section 35 or of duty as provided by section 37, he shall sent to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector, or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector.” Under Section 2(9) of the Act, Collector includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer whom the State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf. No Gazette notification is produced by the both parties to show that the District Registrar is appointed in this behalf. Therefore, in view of the above provision, the impugned order under revision, is modified directing the trial court to send the document dated 6.7.1998, to the District Collector, for the purpose of assessing the payment of penalty or of stamp duty as provided by Section 37 of the Act, but not to the District Registrar. The District Collector, shall assess the payment of stamp duty or of penalty after receipt of the document dated 6.7.1998, from the concerned court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the document. 7. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 27.10.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU C.R.P.No.3905 of 2011 Date:27.10.2011 Gk.