Honble SHETHNA, J.–Additional Collector Stamps and Registration, Ganganagar-respondent no.2 by his order dated 21.8.85 (Annexure 4) asked the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.20292/- as stamp duty and penalty. The said order was challlenged by the petitioner before Board of Revenue by way of revision but the same was rejected on 2.9.89 (Annexure 5). These orders Annexure 4 and Annexure 5 are under challenge in this petition. (2). Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Sharma has raised only one contention namely that as provided in Sec.47-A (2) read with Sec.66-A, the Collector was supposed to hold a detailed enquiry in prescribed manner determining the market value and the duty including the penalty and surcharge, however, he has not held any enquiry and passed order of paying Rs. 20292/- as stamp duly and penalty against the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore it is liable to be set aside. (3). It appears from the impugned orders at Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to produce evidence in support of his case, however, he has miserably failed to produce any oral evidence in support of his case. (4). The Sub-Registrar himself visited the site and inspected the same and found that the constructed portion on the plot had five rooms on the ground floor and five rooms on the first floor and they were in good condition. The value of house consisting ten rooms alongwith facilities of bathroom, W.C. , verandah and the fact that the plot was in the main market he estimated the total value of Rs. 80,000/- It is true that the Sub-Registrar had not based his report on the sale of similar other properties in the same locality registered in the past for higher valuation. However, from the fact n arrated by the Sub-Registrar in the report one can reasonably assessed the market value at Rs.80,000/-. Once the revisional court i.e. Board of Revenue refused to interfere with such assessment arrived at by the Sub-Registrar in its revisional jurisdiction then certainly this Court will not sit in appeal over such decision arrived at by the Additional Collector as well as the Board of Revenue in its writ jurisdiction. The submission of Mr. Sharma was that after receiving report from the Sub- Registrar, the Collector should have given an opportunity. The submission of Mr. Sharma was that after receiving report from the Sub- Registrar, the Collector should have given an opportunity. I failed to understand what further opportunity was to be given to petitioner when he failed to adduce any oral evidence or satisfactory evidence in support of his case. If the Collector was satisfied with the report of Sub-Registrar then he has to estimate the market value of the property in absence of contrary evidence led by the petitioner and he did the assessment. (5). Under the circumstances I do not find any substance in this case and accordingly it fails and is dismissed. (6). On stay petition initially ex parte ad interim stay was granted on 6.11.89 and later on it was confirmed on 7.4.92 till the final disposal of this petition. The same is vacated forthwith.