JUDGMENT D.D. Verma, I.A.S., C.C.R.A. - This revision has been filed by Azizuddin, revisionist under section 56(1) of the Stamp Act against the judgment and order dated 22-8-1987 passed by Sri S.N. Bajpai, Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue) Agra in Suit no. 1155/1984-85. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a document was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration. Collector, it appears, on a complaint made to him by one Radhey Shyam on 22-6-1984 alleging under valuation and evasion of stamp duty summoned its copy from the Sub-Registrar and who in turn sent the original document. Notice was issued to the vendee of the document who contested it by filing objection. The vendee raised some technical legal objections. According to him since the Sub-Registrar himself did not refer the document under the provisions of the Stamp Act no action was called for from the Collector. The Deputy Commissioner of Stamps trying the case ultimately ordered on 5-10-1985 for sending the document back to the Sub-Registrar with the direction that the sub-registrar should see what action was called for in the matter and if he thinks it deserves action under section 33/38(z) or under section 47-A (1) of the Act he should do it prior to the registration of the document and if he thinks that action is to be taken under section 33(4) or under section 47-A (4) he should send the file to the Collector after registering. Against the above said order dated 5-10-1985, a revision was filed before the then Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by his order dated 4-9-1986 rejected the revision as not maintainable. After this judgment dated 4-9-1986, the revisionist in this case moved an application on 13-8-1987 to the effect that the document in question may be sent to Sub-Registrar Agra for registration in compliance with the orders dated 5-10-1985 and order 4-9-1986. Learned A.D.M. (Revenue and Finance) instead, decided to send it to the District Magistrate vide his order dated 22-8-1987 for recovery of deficit Stamp duty. Against the above said order dated 22-8-1987 the present revision has been filed before this court by the revisionist. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the State Representative. Learned A.D.M. (Revenue and Finance) instead, decided to send it to the District Magistrate vide his order dated 22-8-1987 for recovery of deficit Stamp duty. Against the above said order dated 22-8-1987 the present revision has been filed before this court by the revisionist. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the State Representative. I have also gone through the records of the lower court, and have perused the order dated 5-10-1985 of the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps Agra Region, Agra, and the C.C.R.As order dated 4-9-1986, and the impugned order dated 22-8-1987 of A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Agra. 4. The order dated 5-10-1985 of the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps, was passed by him acting as Collector under the Stamp Act, against which a revision was filed. The revision was decided by the C.C.R.As above-quoted order dated 4-9-1986. In his order dated 5-10 1985, the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps, had ordered that the document may be sent back to the Sub-Registrar for reference under section 33/38(2) and/or Section 47-A (1) or action under section 33(4) or 47-(4) of the Stamp Act as he deemed fit. The revision against this order was rejected by the C.C.R.A. on 4-9-1986 on the grounds that the revision was pre-mature and not maintainable. The C.C.R.A. in his detailed judgment dated 4-9-1986 had at length discussed the various provisions under which the document could be referred to the Collector by the Sub-Registrar, and also the provisions under which the Collector could take action himself. The views expressed by the C.C.R.A. supported the contention of the Deputy Commissioner, Stamps. However, after the receipt of the C.C.R.As order, and also after perusing the Deputy Commissioners observations, the learned A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), vide his order dated 22-8-1987 has again held that there was no need to send the document to the Sub-Registrar. He has held that when the fact of evasion of stamp duty has come to the notice of the District Registrar, and the document has already been presented before the Sub-Registrar, it was not necessary to send it back to the Sub-Registrar for just mentioning that "action under the Stamp Act may be taken". I think, there has been a lack of appreciation by the lower court of the various provisions of the Stamp Act and the views expressed by C.C.R A. in his order dated 4-9-1986. The Dy. I think, there has been a lack of appreciation by the lower court of the various provisions of the Stamp Act and the views expressed by C.C.R A. in his order dated 4-9-1986. The Dy. Commissioner of Stamps has specifically ordered that the original document may be sent back to the Sub-registrar on receipt of which the latter has the option of taking recourse to either of the following two actions (a) he may make a due reference under section 33(1) or Section 47(A) (1) of the Stamp Act before registering the document or (b) he may send the original document to Collector for action under Section 33(4) or under section 47-A (4) of the Stamp Act after registering the same. 5. A careful study of these provisions of Stamp Act clearly show that the tools of section 33(4) and 47-A(4) have been made available to Collector to repair any loss to Government dues which went unnoticed or undetected at the level of Sub-Registrar. However, these provisions come into play only after Sub-registrar has exercised his jurisdiction under section 33(l)/38(2) or 47-A(l) of the Stamp Act. Collector need not act hastily not to let the sub-registrar even apply his mind under section 33(1)/38(2) or 47-A(l). This exactly has happened in this case. Even before Sub-Registrar could make up his mind on the document produced before him, the complainant had rushed to the Collector who immediately called for the original document not under any provision of Act but rather purely administratively. This led to an anamolous situation where Sub-registrar could not take action under section 33(l)/38(2) or 47-A(l) nor could Collector take any action, even suo moto, under section 33(4) or 47-A (4) for want of registration of the document. Registration of document is definitely a pre-requisite for action under section 33(4) or 47-A(4) by the Collector. This is borne out by the fact that the section 47-A(4) mentions the registration of the document and the time-limit for taking action under this section has been kept as four years from the date of registration. Similarly in section 33(4), it has been mentioned that "deficiency of stamp duty paid is noticed (by the Collector) from the copy of the instrument". This makes it clear that even section 33(4) pre-supposes registration of the document at the level of the sub-registrar. Similarly in section 33(4), it has been mentioned that "deficiency of stamp duty paid is noticed (by the Collector) from the copy of the instrument". This makes it clear that even section 33(4) pre-supposes registration of the document at the level of the sub-registrar. The best course of action in this case for the Collector was probably to ask the sub-registrar to take a decision on this document within a specified period, say 15 days, and in case he chose not to make a reference under section 33(1) or 47-A(l) and instead registered the document, the Collector could take suo motu action under section 33(4) or 47-A(4). 6. Be as it may, in the given circumstances, there is no option for the ADM(F and R) but to act as per the suggestion given in the Dy. Commissioners order dated 5-10-1985 as upheld by the C.C.R.A. in his order dated 4-9-1986. The impugned order dated 22-8-1987 of the learned A.D.M. (F and R) is not in consonance with the above said orders of Dy. Commissioner (Stamps)/C.C.R.A. and deserves therefore, to be set aside. 7. The revision is allowed and the order of Additional Collector (Revenue and Finance) dated 22-8-1987 is set aside and the file is sent back to him for further action as per the guidelines given above. This order will also govern Stamp Revision No. 878(P) of 87-88/Agra.