JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the representative of the department. The learned counsel for the revisionist raised a preliminary point on the question of limitation. He stated that the sale deed was registered on February 22, 1972. The revisionist received a notice from the Stamp Officer on March 7, 1976 i.e. after a period of 4 years. It was brought to my notice by the department that first notice was issued by the Stamp Officer on January 16, 1976 which was served by affixation on January 31, 1976 in the presence of two witnesses. The Stamp Officer, even though the notice appears to be sufficient, issued another notice which was personally served on March 7, 1976. Thus it is clear from the record that the notice was served on the revisionist within the stipulated period of 4 years by affixation. 2. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that this notice was defective as it is without any authority of law and should have been issued by the Collector under section 47-A (4) read with sub-section (3) thereof. 3. A perusal of section 47-A(4) clearly shows that the Collector may suo moto.........within four years from the date of registration...... call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value.......and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, then he will follow the procedure provided for in sub-section (3). Sub-section (4) does not lay down that notice must be issued within a period of 4 years. It clearly stipulates only that the Collector may call for and examine the instrument within 4 years. So long the process of examination has started within 4 years, it has to be held that the proceedings have started within limitation. The procedure laid down in sub-section (3) of section 47-A is a separate procedure which will be allowed after the Collector's satisfaction about the correctness of the market value. In this case the Chief Inspector of Stamp made a report to the Collector on August 13, 1975 vide paper No. 3 on the file. The procedure laid down in sub-section (3) of section 47-A is a separate procedure which will be allowed after the Collector's satisfaction about the correctness of the market value. In this case the Chief Inspector of Stamp made a report to the Collector on August 13, 1975 vide paper No. 3 on the file. The proceedings by the Collector were started on August 27, 1975 which is clearly within 4 years as stipulated under section 47-A. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel that the period of limitation should be reckoned with reference to the date of receipt of notice by the vendee is not correct. If the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamp had been made after a period of four years then of course the point would have been well taken. Under the circumstances stated above I rejected the objection raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of limitation. 4. The Lekhpal and Tahsildar, in this case, reported the value of the property at Rs. 18,000/- approximately which is below the price shown in the sale deed. This report relies upon the certain sale deeds of the year 1971. These sale deeds have not been accepted by the Stamp Officer in his report to the Collector and be has relied upon the sale deeds cited by the Inspector of Stamp and the value has been assessed at an average of Rs. 5,000/- per bigha. An examination of those sale deeds leaves an impression on my mind that the examples quoted by the department are somewhat on the higher side because of the special nature of the land being either of a very small area, being near to Abadi and thirdly adjoining land to the vendee. For such consideration the vendees do agree to higher price than the real value of the land. Therefore. there is a case for some reduction in the valuation. I, therefore, order that the property be valued at Rs. 32,000/- per bigha and the Stamp duty be realised accordingly. The penalty if any levied is waived.