K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition dated 13-1-1983 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by a member of the Board of Revenue directing the application to be presented before the Competent Court. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are these : the petitioner is a member of a Housing Society know n as 'bhartiya Griha nirman Sahakari Sanstha. Maryadit Indore (respondent No. 5) registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Acl, 1961 He sold 10. 16 acres of his land to the said Sanstha by a registered sale-deed dated 23-11-1971. The sale deed Was unstamped and was registered by respondent No. 4 the Sub-Registrar Indore. Later after impounding the document and a report being made by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 the Collector of Stamps, Indore to the effect that the sale-deed was not exempt from stamp duty and further that the sale deed was under valued the latter after inquiry ordered (vide order dated 18-7-1978, Annexure A) that a sum of Rs. 8442. 50 as reported, be recovered from the petitioner. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure B) under Section 57 of the Stamp Act, before the Revenue Commissioner, indore (respondent No. 2) for making a reference to the High Court. The respondent No. 2 by his order dated 9-1-1981 holding that the Chief Controlling revenue Authority referred to in Section 57 (1) of the Act is the Board of revenue (the respondent No. 1) returned the application for presentation to the said authority. The petitioner then presented the application to the Board of revenue along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 without bearing the petitioner, by its order dated 29-10-1982 returned the said application under Section 57 of the Act for presentation to the Competent Court. ( 5 ) PETITIONER's contention is that the transaction in question in terms of the notification by the State is exempt from stamp duty and the valuation of the sale-deed was also proper. ( 5 ) PETITIONER's contention is that the transaction in question in terms of the notification by the State is exempt from stamp duty and the valuation of the sale-deed was also proper. It is urged that in the circumstances either the respondent No. 1 or the respondent No. 2 was bound by law to make a reference as contemplated under Section 57 of the Act and direction to that effect may be issued by the Court. ( 6 ) IN their return the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have stated that the transaction of the sort was not exempt from stamp duty and it was through oversight that this could not be detected at the time the document was registered. ( 7 ) FOR a proper appreciation of the controversy it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 57 of the Act. It runs thus : "57. (1) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case referred to it under Section 56 sub-section (2) or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its own, opinion thereon (a) If it arises in a State to the High Court for that State. The reference referred to is one by the Collector in case he feels doubt as to the duty with which an instrument is chargeable and under sub-section (2) the case has to be decided by not less than three Judges of the High Court. ( 8 ) SECTION 3 (10) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 embodies the definition of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. According to it, the Chief Controlling revenue Authority or Chief Revenue Authority shall mean in a State where there is Board of Revenue, that Board and in a State where there is a Revenue commissioner, that Commissioner. ( 9 ) SECTION 7 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 dealing with the jurisdiction of the Board provides that the Board shall exercise powers and discharge functions as have been conferred or may be conferred by or under any central or State Act on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the Board of Revenue is the Chief Controlling revenue Authority having jurisdiction over an application under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. ( 10 ) AT this stage reference to the notification relied upon by the petitioner is necessary. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the Board of Revenue is the Chief Controlling revenue Authority having jurisdiction over an application under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. ( 10 ) AT this stage reference to the notification relied upon by the petitioner is necessary. The number of the notification is 1210/203/vsr dated 27-4-61. According to it, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 (1) of the stamp Act, 1899 the State Government has exempted from payment of stamp duty all instruments executed by the registered Co-operative Societies or any of its office-bearers or members which relate to business of such Society. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that a plain perusal of the notification shows that it does not exempt a transaction of the sort from payment of stamp duty. The question could have been different if the petitioner had executed the document for and on behalf of the 'sanstha' for the benefit of which the exemption has been provided. ( 11 ) NOW as to the question of reference to the High Court. The discretionary power under Section 57 of the Stamp Act is no doubt wide and clearly enough a reference under Section 56 ibid by the Collector is not always necessary. However, reference is to be made to the High Court when a case is pending and there is doubt as to the amount of stamp duty with which an instrument is chargeable. It is not that merely because a controversy is raised, an obligation is cast on the Board to make a reference to the High Court. In the decision in Chaturbhudas and others v. State of M. P. and others, [ 1975 jlj 833 ] it has been held that the power of control under Section 56 of the stamp Act does not clothe the Board of Revenue to decide. In a case referred to it under Section 56 (1) of the Act or otherwise brought to its notice, it has to refer a case with its own opinion to the High Court. In a case referred to it under Section 56 (1) of the Act or otherwise brought to its notice, it has to refer a case with its own opinion to the High Court. ( 12 ) IN the decision in State of M. P. v. Martand Singh, [ 1984 JLJ 328 ] it has been held that where a question has already been decided by the High court, the Board of Revenue need not refer such question again to the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 59 of the Act. ( 13 ) RELYING on the decision in Komalchand Jain and another v State of m. P. , [1965 JLJ 656 : 1965 MPLJ 6061 in the aforesaid decision in Martand singh's case (supra) it has been pointed out with reference to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 that a reference could be made by the registering authority only when an objection was taken at the time of registration and not thereafter. Towards the end of paragraph 3 of the decision in Komal Chand's case (supra)it has been pointed out that neither in the Registration Act nor in the Stamp aot is there any provision giving to the registering officer any power to examine whether an instrument already legistered was or was not duly stamped and to impound it. As soon as the document is registered the registering officer becomes functus qfficio having no power under Section 33 of the Stamp Act to impound the instrument. Towards the end of paragraph 4 it has been observed that paragraphs 231 and 232 of the Registration Manual do not say that after a document is admitted to registration, the registering officer can make a report to the Collector that it was not sufficiently stamped. The following excerpt from the paragraph may usefully be reproduced : "on the other hand, taking any further action, that is to say, in the matter of registration, the registering officer must see that the document is duly stamped. The words "after registering the document" occurring in paragraph 232 obviously refer to the entry of the document in the Register maintained of documents presented for registration. They do not mean that the registering officer can make a report about insufficiency of stamp after the document has been admitted to registration. The words "after registering the document" occurring in paragraph 232 obviously refer to the entry of the document in the Register maintained of documents presented for registration. They do not mean that the registering officer can make a report about insufficiency of stamp after the document has been admitted to registration. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) ULTIMATELY in the aforesaid decision in Mar land Singh's case (supra)answering the first question referred to by the Board of Revenue, the majority of the three Judges deciding the reference held that after registration of the document, the registering authority has no power to hold an inquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. ( 15 ) IN the result, the order passed by the Board of Revenue that it has no jurisdiction in the matter of the petitioner's application under Section 57 of the stamp Act is quashed and it is directed to consider the application according to law in the light of the observations made above. ( 16 ) THE petition is accordingly disposed of as indicated above. Order accordingly. .