R.L. Anand, J.

1. Shri Abhinav Kumar minor son of Shri Sumender Singh, has field the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and he prayed that the order dated 21.3.2000 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak and the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by the SDO (Civil)-cum-Collector, Rohtak, as-sissing the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 12.39 lacs per acre enhancing from Rs. 1.60 lacs per acre are illegal.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Vide sale deed No. 8285 dated 18.3.1998 the appellant purchased land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in Killa No. 200/15 of Khewat No. 531 Khatauni No. 653 situated in the area of village Bohar, Tehsil and district Rohtak for Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Sub Registrar, at the time of the registration of the sale deed found that the land sold has been under valued and as such he referred the case to the Collector, Rohtak for determination of the price of the land under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. After necessary enquiry the Collector vide order dated 12.5.1998 held that the value of the sold land was Rs. 12.39 lacs. Accordingly, a notice was given to the petitioner to show cause as to why the recovery should not effected from him.

3. The objections were filed by the petitioner. Rejecting the objections, the Collector vide order dated 12.5.1998 directed the petitionerto deposit in the Government Treasury within thirty days the loss of the stamp duty of Rs. 1,72,045/- and a fine of Rs. 1,72,045/- totalling Rs. 3,44,090/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 12.5.1998 the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner who vide order dated 21.3.2000 dismissed the appeal. In this manner the present revision has been preferred.

5. I have heard Shri JitendarNara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Yash Pal, learned AAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the Sub Registrar in referring the matter to the Collector was illegal. According to the petitioner, the document was presented for registration on 18.3.1998 and the reference was made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector on 26.3.1998. The counsel submitted that this reference could only be made on 18.3.1998 when the Sub Registrar was in the process of registering the document and when he was not satisfied regarding the stamp duty. In support of its contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to the State of Haryana. As per (his Section, if the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of the property, or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

7. Thus, the reading of the above provision would show that the Legislature has used the following words with some significance and importance :

"While registering any instrument"

Meaning thereby the reference can only be made immediately after the registration of the document or in the course of the registration of the document but in the present case, reference has been made after 8 days which is not in accordance with law. These provisions were also interpreted by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 4412 of 1998, Vijya Ram v. State of Haryana and others, where it was held as follows :-

"It will thus appear that the consistent view of this Court is that there is no provision in the Indian Stamp Act wherein deficient stamp duty can be recovered by the registering authority either from the vendor or from the vendee subsequent to and alter the registration of the sale deed."

No law contrary to it, has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. In these circumstances, the present revision is allowed; the impugned orders are hereby quashed and directions are given to the State of Haryana not to recover any amount from the petitioner. No order as to costs.

9. Revision allowed.