Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of direction, since the same question is involved in the main writ petition and counter has been filed and the question raised is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, on consent of the counsels appearing, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty before registering the document filed by him. On 18.9.2000, a sale deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner and the petitioner has paid the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deed. On the basis of such consideration amount, stamp duty was paid and the sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent on the very same day. The second respondent considering that market value has not been reflected, called upon the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty. The aforesaid order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that demand for payment of additional stamp duty is justified. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that action has been taken in accordance with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987. Section 47-A which has been incorporated in the Indian Stamp Act by virtue of the aforesaid amendment is extracted here under :- 47A. Instruments of conveyance etc., under-valued how to be dealt with. - (1) If the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the partied a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (3) The Collector may suo motu, within two years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of commencement of the Indian Stamp (Madras Amendment) Act, 1967. (4) Every person liable to pay the difference in the amount of duty under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall, pay such duty within such period as may be prescribed. In default of such payment, such amount of duty outstanding on the date of default shall be a charge on the property affected in such instrument. On any amount remaining unpaid after the date specified, for its payment, the person liable to pay the duty shall pay, in addition to the amount due, interest at two per cent per month on such amount for the entire period of default. (5) to (10) . . . On any amount remaining unpaid after the date specified, for its payment, the person liable to pay the duty shall pay, in addition to the amount due, interest at two per cent per month on such amount for the entire period of default. (5) to (10) . . . Explanation :- For the purpose of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Collector or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or the High Court, as the case may be, such property, would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, benami right or settlement". 5. A perusal of 47-A (1) makes it clear that the registering authority while registering any instrument of conveyance has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly reflected in the instrument, he may “after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.” It is thus clear that the registering authority has power to refer the instrument to the Collector for determination of the market value and this can be done after registering such instrument. Section 47-A does not confer any jurisdiction to the registering authority to refuse registration of any particular instrument on the ground of under valuation nor does it authorise the registering authority to call upon the person concerned to pay additional stamp duty. It is only the Collector who has such jurisdiction while dealing with the matter either under Section 47-A (2) or (3). The only jurisdiction of the registering authority is to refer the question and that too only after registering the instrument. This position is clear on a bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 47-A and it is not necessary to refer to any authority on this aspect. However, it appears that similar question has been decided by the Supreme Court in a matter arising from this Court in the decision reported in 2001(1) S.C.C. 742 (GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. PARK VIEW ENTERPRISES, REP. BY SCM. JAMULUDEEN & OTHERS). 6. However, it appears that similar question has been decided by the Supreme Court in a matter arising from this Court in the decision reported in 2001(1) S.C.C. 742 (GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. PARK VIEW ENTERPRISES, REP. BY SCM. JAMULUDEEN & OTHERS). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner should be called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty before the document is registered or returned to the petitioner. This submission is again based on misconception regarding the provisions contained in Section 47-A. As already noticed, Section 47-A empowers the registering authority to refer the question of under-valuation to the Collector and sub section (2) makes it clear that the Collector on such a reference, can determine the market value after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing the parties. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that even where no reference is made by the registering authority, the Collector has got suo motu power to call for and examine the instrument for determining the market value. If the matter is decided either under sub-section (2) or (3), the deficit amount should be paid by the person liable to pay such amount. Sub-section (4) makes it clear that such amount has to be paid within the period as may be prescribed and default in making such payment such amount of duty outstanding on default shall be a charge on the property affected in such instrument. Moreover, the person is also liable to pay interest at 2% per month for the period of default. Since a specific and exhaustive procedure has been contemplated under Section 47-A, the second respondent is not justified in refusing to register the instrument and insist upon payment of differential value as determined by him. 7. It was also faintly suggested that the petitioner should be called upon to secure the payment of the differential amount by furnishing bank guarantee or even property security. As may not be able to pay such amount if ultimately decided by the Collector or the petitioner may even alienate the property in the meantime after obtaining the registered document. The submission is without substance and the apprehension is without basis. As already indicated Section 47-A (4) makes it amply clear that the person has to pay the differential amount if any within a stipulated period and on default the amount is to be considered as a “charge” on the property. The submission is without substance and the apprehension is without basis. As already indicated Section 47-A (4) makes it amply clear that the person has to pay the differential amount if any within a stipulated period and on default the amount is to be considered as a “charge” on the property. Section 48 makes it clear that the amount can be recovered in Revenue Recovery Proceedings. Since the amount is a “charge” on the property, such property can be subjected to coercive process whenever necessary notwithstanding any alienation because law is well settled that alienation if any shall always be subject to such charge. Since the property itself would be available the question of directing furnishing further security would be redundant and uncalled for. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I direct the second respondent to register the document in question in accordance with law and return the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order. It is open to the second respondent to make reference as contemplated under Section 47-A (1) and even otherwise the Collector may also invoke suo motu power under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed without any order as to costs. Consequently, WPMP.Nos.23501 & 23502 of 2002 are closed.