ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— Petitioner is a person who had been allotted an industrial plot bearing No. 343 in the Peenya Industrial Area of Bangalore North Taluk by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('the Broad' for short). The allotment was in the year 1987 and as per a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 7.7.1987 executed in favour of the Petitioner by the Board. The value of the site allotted in favour of the Petitioner was shown to be Rs.75,987/-. This agreement was registered as on 7.7.1987 and the Registering Authority collected the corresponding stamp duty and the registration fee. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the registration fee that was paid at that time was a sum of Rs.1,520/-. The Broad subsequently executed a regular Conveyance Deed on 3.5.1997 and this was presented for registration on 16.5.1997. On this occasion the appropriate stamp duty on the value of Rs.75,987/- and registration fee amount at the rate of Rs.1520/- was collected. 3. It is thereafter that the Petitioner was issued with a notice dated 13.3.1998 under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('the Stamp Act' for short) indicating that the registration fee collected at the time of the registration of the document as on 16.5.1997 was not the correct registration fee; that it had been collected on the value of the property as disclosed in the document whereas the registration fee was required to be paid as per Note 7B of the Table of Fees to the Registration Act; that the market value of the property at the time of registration was much higher and commensurate registration fee was required to be paid on that. Petitioner replied to the show-cause notice as per his reply dated 3.4.1998 (copy at Annexure-B). 4. The Respondent-District Registrar for Detection of Under Valuation of Stamps has however negatived the various contentions urged in his reply and has ultimately passed the order dated 28.1.2002 (copy at Annexure-F) calling upon the Petitioner to pay the differential registration fee of Rs.84,520/-. It is aggrieved by this demand, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the same on the main grounds urged in the writ petition. 5. It is aggrieved by this demand, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the same on the main grounds urged in the writ petition. 5. It is interalia urged that the Respondent has no authority to pass such an order particularly for determining the value of the property which is a plot of industrial land allotted by the Board and in respect of which a Government Order indicates that for the purpose of levy of stamp duty and collecting registration fee, the value should be as indicated in the document itself and not on the market value; that the sale deed registered on 3.5.1997 was governed by the Government Notification which extended such benefit in respect of those transactions and documents which were registered on or before 29.9.1997; that the Petitioner was entitled to such benefits under this Notification namely Government Order No. RD 286 MUNOMU 2001, Bangalore, dated 20.11.2001; that the Respondent has, without application of mind to relevant provisions of the Government Notification, in a mechanical manner proceeded to collect the registration fee; that invoking the provisions of Section 45A of the Stamp Act was illegal and without jurisdiction; that in fact there was no under valuation of the value of any property attracting the provisions of Section 45A of the Stamp Act; that the Respondents had not followed the settled law as declared by this Court in such matters and that the order is required to be quashed. 6. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. 7. It is interlia pointed out that the writ petition is not tenable inasmuch as the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal under the Stamp Act and that he should avail of the statutory remedy of appeal in the first instance. However, it is conceded in the statement of objections that though the Government Notification relied upon by the Petitioner was only extending the benefit in respect of payment of stamp duty, the Government has issued yet another Notification in exercise of its powers under Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908 and in this Government Order dated 15.2.2002, the registration fee payable under the Table of Registration fee is as per Note 7(1)(b) of Article 1. The market value in a situation of the nature covering the Petitioner is the consideration set forth in the instrument and presented for registration on or before 29.9.1997 and if the Petitioner can claim the benefit of this Notification, registration fee payable will be only as per this Government Order. 8. In view of the very submission made in the statement of objections conceding that the registration fee payable is only on the market value which is as mentioned in the document itself, the order at Annexure-F passed by the Respondent determining the registration fee payable on the basis of the market value of the property involved in the transaction as on the date of registration is clearly unsustainable. The demand for the differential amount on such basis is obviously illegal. The Respondents themselves having conceded this position, there is no need to drive the Petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal. 9. In the result this writ petition is allowed. The order and demand as per Annexure-F bearing No. MVD.N./828/ of 1997-98 bearing document No. 1481 of 1997-98 dated 28.1.2002 by the Respondent, is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 10. Rule issued and made absolute.