ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - Gulab Chand Bangar, Petitioner No. 1, presented a deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Varanasi, on 6-8-1963, purporting to be a deed of relinquishment in favour of Smt. Sarju Devi, Petitioner No. 2, the grand daughter of Petitioner No. 1. The property in which Gulab Chand purported to relinquish his rights in favour of his grand-daughter had been purchased by him together with one Kanhaiyalal Jhanwar in 1943. It appears that the sale deed did not specify the shares in which the two co-sharers purchased the property, but the share was assumed to be half each Gulab Chand, Petitioner No. 1, alleged that the property was really purchased by his granddaughter through him. It was alleged that Petitioner No. 2 being the wife of a sufficiently well to do person, Girdhari Lal Dhaga of Calcutta, had enough funds of he own. It is also stated in the petition that the property was in the possession of Petitioner No. 2 since it was purchased and it was she who used to pay the land revenue. Petitioner No. 1, therefore, purported to execute a deed of release in favour of his grand daughter on a stamped document of the value of Rs. 50/-. 2. The Sub-Registrar, however, did not accept the case set up by Gulab Chand Bangar. He, therefore, impounded the document because, in his opinion, it was chargeable to a stamp duty as a gift and not as a deed of release. The Sub-Registrar relied on the sale deed of 1943 in favour of Gulab Chand Bangar and on the statement of Gulab Chand Bangar that the property had been held by him with the co-purchaser Kanhaiyalal as a co owner. He pointed out that as the shares of the co-owners were not defined in the property, the release could only be from the whole property and not from half of it. The Sub Registrar also pointed out a deed of release is defined Under Schedule I to Article 55 of the Stamp Act as "any instrument not being such a release as is provided for by Section 23(A) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property." Section 23(A) has no application to this case. The Sub Registrar also pointed out a deed of release is defined Under Schedule I to Article 55 of the Stamp Act as "any instrument not being such a release as is provided for by Section 23(A) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property." Section 23(A) has no application to this case. The Sub-Registrar stated, in a report made by him to the Collector that a transfer with consideration was a sale but one without consideration was a gift and that a release was neither as it does not involve a transfer at all. In his view, the document of alleged release, read in the light of the sale deed of 1943, constituted a transfer. 3. Before the Collector, the Petitioner No. 1 denied that there was any question of a gift involved. He also asserted that the deed was one of surrender and could be so described in view of the legal opinion given to him and that it could also be a deed of relinquishment or release, under the provisions of Article 55, mentioned above. The Petitioners also said that there was no intention to evade stamp duty. 4. The powers of the Collector, in dealing with impounded instruments, are given in Section 40 of the Stamp Act. This provides, inter alia, u/s 40(1)(b), that if the document is not duly stamped the Collector may require payment of proper duty together with a penalty which shall not exceed ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficiency in it. 5. In the instant case, the Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue, opposite party No. 1, u/s 56 of the Stamp Act which runs as follows: (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector u/Ch. IV and V and Under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (2) If any Collector, acting u/s 31, Section 40 or Section 41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (2) If any Collector, acting u/s 31, Section 40 or Section 41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. 6. It is clear from the above mentioned provisions that if the Collector, before taking any action u/s 40 or Section 41 entertains a doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may refer it for opinion to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which is the Board of Revenue in the State of UP. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority itself does not get the power to impose a penalty, although the Collector may ask for an opinion in a case in which he has any doubt about the amount of penalty to be imposed. The Collector's report (annexure V to the petition) shows that the Collector had only referred the question whether the document in question was a deed of gift or of release. The Collector had only asked for a decision on that matter. After the decision of the Board of Revenue, the Collector had to determine the stamp duty and could, if he thought fit, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the Petitioner No. 1, impose a penalty. It is true that an opportunity to be heard is not provided for in the Act, but the nature of the function in imposing a penalty being quasi-judicial, such a right will be presumed unless expressly excluded. 7. In the instant case, the Board of Revenue not only determined the question referred to it by the Collector, but also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- after holding that there was a deficiency of Rs. 335/- on the document. The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue u/s 56 is merely that of an authority which has to clear the doubts of the Collector and also to control the exercise of the powers by the Collector. But, it cannot suplant the duty imposed by law on the Collector. 335/- on the document. The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue u/s 56 is merely that of an authority which has to clear the doubts of the Collector and also to control the exercise of the powers by the Collector. But, it cannot suplant the duty imposed by law on the Collector. It could only direct the Collector himself to take action in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the document had not been actually registered and that the Collector had himself felt a doubt. Therefore, on the face of it, the imposition of penalty appeared unreasonable. 8. So far as the decision on the question whether the document was a deed of release or a transfer in the nature of a gift is concerned, the Board of Revenue had decided it on evidence before it. Such a decision, where right or wrong, cannot be interfered with Under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless the error is apparent on the face of the record. I am unable to hold that there is any apparent error in the finding that the document presented before the registering authorities for registration was really a gift deed and not an instrument of release. The person in whose favour there can be a release must possess a preexisting right or interest in the property. It cannot be said that the view of the Board of Revenue that the Petitioner No. 2 had no such interest was unreasonable or patently erroneous. 9. I, therefore, consider it necessary to set aside only the order relating to payment of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- . The decision with regard to deficiency of Rs. 335/- and the direction to realise this sum given to the Collector, Varanasi, cannot be interfered with. 10. The result is that this writ petition is allowed in part. The order imposing the penalty is quashed, but the remaining part of the order will stand. Parties will bear their own costs.