JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - Heard Dr. R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and (sic) Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has sought for quashing the order dated 30.7.1980 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, respondent no. 1 under section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the notice for recovery dated 29.8.1980 and further for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to ask for additional stamp duty from the petitioner in respect of the document (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). 3. According to the petitioner, there was an old house, which was Constructed in the year 1930, situate in Mohalla Sheopur Town, Bulandshahr. The land belongs to Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Bulandshahr. The petitioner intended to purchase the rights of Smt. Chandrawati over the said house and, therefore, gave an application to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahr for determining the value of the house and also the stamp duty to be paid on the transfer deed. The said application was moved on 30.8.1979. Thereafter when the petitioner did not receive any reply, he got a transfer deed executed on 3.9 1979. for Rs. 33,000 , for which he paid requisite stamp duty. The Additional District Magistrate meanwhile got an estimate of value of the property prepared from the Supervisor, Kunoongo, who by his report dated 10.10.1979 estimated the value of the property in dispute at Rs. 65,000, against which the petitioner filed an objection and challenged the said valuation. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the said report was not correct as the estimate given by the Supervisor Kanoongo includes the value of the land on which the building is constructed, while the petitioner has not purchased that land, which belongs to the housing Society and has not been transferred by the transferor. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order dated 30.7.1980 holding that the value of the property transferred was Rs. 65,000 and the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 3,600 as additional stamp duty, penalty, registration fee etc. This order is Annexure No. VIII to the writ petition. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order dated 30.7.1980 holding that the value of the property transferred was Rs. 65,000 and the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 3,600 as additional stamp duty, penalty, registration fee etc. This order is Annexure No. VIII to the writ petition. This impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner stating that the learned Additional District Magistrate has committed an error of law in mentioning that the petitioner has not given any evidence about the transfer of the land by the transferor to the petitioner. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the said impugned order is said to have been passed in accordance with law & it has been stated that it was not possible to determine the stamp duty without determining the valuation of the house in question and it was not possible to determine the valuation of the house in question up to 3.9.79 as the application for the same was received only on 31.8.79. It is only after the receipt of the said application the Additional District Magistrate concerned called for the proper enquiry and report. The counteraffidavit admits that in pursuance of the said order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, a notice for recovery was issued against the petitioner. Further stand taken in the counteraffidavit is that the petitioner, in fact, moved the aforesaid application on 31879 and without waiting for the reply of the authorities concerned, got the saledeed executed on lesser valuation of the house in dispute. We want to make it clear that in the present writ petition we are concerned with the subsequent registration of the transfer deed made subsequent to the application on which the Additional District Magistrate has passed an order. 4. Admittedly, the question which calls for our consideration is whether the recovery against the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in the present case is permissible? We find that this question raised in the present writ petition regarding the power of the authority to recover the amount of stamp duty in a proceeding under Section 3 of the said Act has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, appellant v. Commissioner and others, opposite parties (AIR 1956 Allahabad 453). In the said case the Division Bench held as under: The words is produced or comes in the performance of his function, used in Section 33 mean the production of the instrument concerned in evidence or for the purpose of placing reliance upon it by one party or the other. Therefore when an instrument, which has already been defined in Section 2(12) of the Act, is presented before the Collector for his opinion under Section 31 of the Act, the Collector cannot, if he is of opinion that the instrument requires stamp duty, which has not been paid or has only partly been paid, impound the instrument under Section 33. The procedure, in cases to which Ss. 3 and 32 apply is that when an instrument is brought before the Collector, he proceeds to give his opinion. After the Collector has given his opinion it is left entirely to the applicant to pay the duty or not and the Collector cannot, under either of these sections compel its realisation, nor can he levy any penalty though it may be that he can order the prosecution of the applicant. Moreover, even if he decides to pay, the applicant is allowed an unlimited period of time within which to make payment. 5. The said decision of the Full Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan ( AIR 1961 SC 787 ). 6. Form the aforesaid decision it is clear, as has been held in the said cases, that the scheme of the Act shows that when a person is simply seeking the opinion of the Collector as to the proper duty in regard to an instrument, whether it is properly stamped or not, in fact, it is for the proper execution of the said document or for using it for the purposes of evidence, he has to make up the duty and in accordance with the same under Section 32. The Collector will then make an endorsement and make such an instrument to be treated as if it was duly stamped from the very beginning. The Collector will then make an endorsement and make such an instrument to be treated as if it was duly stamped from the very beginning. But if he does not want to proceed any further than seeking the determination of the duty payable, then, no consequence will follow, and an executed document is in the same position as an instrument which was not executed and unstamped. In fact, after the determination of the duty the Collector becomes functus officio and Section 33 of the Act has no application. The provisions of that section area subsequent stage when something more than mere asking of the opinion of the Collector is done. In fact, as held above in the aforesaid cases by the Bench even after expressing of the opinion by the Collector under Section 31 of the said Act requiring additional stamp duty, the authority cannot enforce its recovery, which is done in the present case and which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Accordingly in view of the foregoing discussions, the present writ petition is partly allowed and it is held that the impugned recovery as against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 2981980 is unsustainable and no recovery of additional stamp duty shall be made as against the petitioner on account of mere expression of opinion against the petitioner in the present writ petition. Costs on parties. (Partly allowed.)