Judgment :- K.A. Swami, C.J. At the stage of admission, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice and obtain the records and ascertain as to whether an order under Sec.59(3) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act was passed by the Collector. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader has secured the records. .2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 7. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.11388 of 1994. In the writ petition, the petitioner/ appellant sought for quashing the order dated 9. 1993 passed by the District Collector directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.36,641 being the additional court-fee payable in O.P. No.241 of 1992. 3. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that there is a delay in filing the writ petition, hence the petitioner/ appellant is guilty of laches. Accordingly learned single Judge has declined to exercise the jurisdiction. 4. We have heard both sides. This is a case in which, demand for additional court-fee is made after the probate is issued by the court. Chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), deals with Probates, Letters of Administration and Certificate of Administration. Secs.55 to 65 are contained in Chapter VI of the Act. Sec.55(1) provides that every application for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration, shall be accompanied by a valuation of the estate in duplicate in the form set forth in Part I of Schedule III. Sub-sec.(2) thereof provides that on receipt of such application, the court shall send a copy thereof, and of the valuation, to the Collector of the District in which the estate is situated, or, if the estate is situated in more than one district, the Collector of the District in which the most valuable portion of the immovable property included in the estate is situated.-Sec.56 provides for the levy of fee chargeable for the grant of probate or Letters of Administration and computation of the fee payable. Sec.57 deals with the grant of probate. Sec.57 deals with the grant of probate. Proviso to Sec.57 also enables the Court to grant probate or letters of administration, notwithstanding that the prescribed fee has not been paid to the Administrator-General in his official capacity on his giving an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that the said fee will be paid within such time as may be fixed by the court. .5. Sec.58 deals with the relief in cases of several grants. Sec.59 deals with the enquiry by the Collector. Sub-sec.(1) thereof provides that the Collector to whom a copy of the application and of the valuation has been sent under Sec.55(2) shall examine the same and may make or cause to be made by any officer subordinate to him such inquiry if any, as he thinks fit as to the correctness of the valuation or, where a part only of the property is situated in his district, of the valuation of that part, and may require the Collector of any other district in which any part of the property is situated, to furnish him with the correct valuation thereof. Any other Collector so required has to furnish the correct valuation of any property situated within his jurisdiction. Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.59 empowers the Collector to take evidence in the event he is of the opinion that the applicant has underestimated the value of the property of the deceased and enquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit. On such enquiry, if he is still of the opinion that the value of the property has been under estimated, he is entitled to require the applicant to amend the valuation, and, if the application for probate or letters of Administration is pending in the court, to file a copy of the amended valuation in such court. Sub-sec.(4) deals with a case, in which, probate or letters of administration has or have been granted and the applicant has amended the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector. Sub-sec.(4) deals with a case, in which, probate or letters of administration has or have been granted and the applicant has amended the valuation to the satisfaction of the Collector. In such case, if the Collector finds that a less fee has been paid than was payable according to the true value of the estate, he can proceed in accordance with Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.61 and cause the probate or letters of administration to be properly stamped on payment of the deficit fee and if he is satisfied that the original undervaluation was not bona fide, it is open to him to levy in addition a penalty not exceeding five times the deficit fee. Therefore, for the purpose of demanding additional court-fee, as is now demanded, on the probate or letters of administration, an enquiry as contemplated under Sec.59(3) and determination of the value of the estate of the deceased is necessary. In the instant case, as the records reveal, no such determination has been made. In the instant case, the records reveal that notice was issued to the petitioner/appellant for the purpose of holding an enquiry under Sec.59 of the Act by the Collector, but the petitioner did not appear before him pursuant to the notice. However, the failure on the part of the petitioner/appellant to appear before the Collector pursuant to the notice issued under Sec.59 of the Act did not absolve Collector from his statutory obligation to determine the question as to whether there was undervaluation of the property, and if that be so, to determine the additional Court fee payable in that regard. As pointed out above, no such determination has been made by the Collector. Consequently, it follows that the further proceedings taken for recovery of the amount representing the additional court-fee payable on the value of the estate of the deceased as arrears of revenue, cannot be sustained. .6. However, Mr.Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the provisions contained in Sec.56(l) of the Act in support of his contention that as the property comprised in the letters of administration, is a trust property, no fee is payable under Chapter VI of the Act. We do not consider it necessary to examine this contention, as it is open to the petitioner/ appellant to put forth the plea before the Collector. 7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 7. We do not consider it necessary to examine this contention, as it is open to the petitioner/ appellant to put forth the plea before the Collector. 7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 7. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge is set abide. The letter of the 1st respondent dated 9. 1993 demanding additional court-fee in a sum of Rs.36,641 is quashed. The proceedings are remitted to the Collector with a direction to decide the issue as to whether there has been an undervaluation of the property comprised in the letters of administration, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/ appellant to put forth his say including the contention that under the proviso to Sec.56(lj the property comprised in letters of administration is not liable to any fee under Chapter VI of the Act. To avoid further delay in the matter, we direct the petitioner/appellant to appear before the Collector on 15th March, 1995 without waiting for the notice and in the event the petitioner fails to appear on 13. 1995 it is open to the Collector to proceed in accordance with law. However, there will be no order as to costs.