ORDER This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 6.4.1997 whereby the Collector had published the estimated minimum value of the land. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are the residents of village Parsa in the town of Patna and they possess land in that village. The Collector, Patna, by his order dated 6.4.1997 (Annexure - 1), estimated the value of the agricultural as also the homestead lands of village Parsa and other villages falling within the district of Patna. The valuation so - fixed was to be made effective from 10th of September, 1997. According to the order, the valuation of homestead and agricultural land of village Parsa was determined at Rs. 5619/ and Rs. 1333/per katha respectively. It is the stand of the petitioners that the Collector has no such power to determine the value of the land. 3. Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that such a power is vested in the State Government, which would be evident from Section 78(a) of the Registration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and as such, the Collector lacks jurisdiction to fix the minimum value of the land. He points out that the Collector cannot be equated with that the State Government. 4. The submission of Mr. Singh is absolutely misconceived. Section 78 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: "78. Fees to be fixed by State Government.- (a) for the registration of documents; xxx xxx 5. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the State Government has been conferred with the power to prepare table of fees payable for the registration of the documents. Registration fee on a document is dependant upon the value of the property and what fee shall be levelled for that purpose is dependent upon valuation and the power to prescribe fee for registration is conferred on the State Government under section 78(a) of the Act but that itself shall not mean that valuation has also to be determined by the State Government. In my opinion such a power has been conferred on the Collector under Rule 5 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, made by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 75 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of section 47 of the said Act, read the follows: "5. Guidelines Register 'of Minimum Value : For the purpose of assisting the Registering Officer in finding out actual market value of properties (as accurately as can be possible) the District Collector, within the area of his district shall after classifying the lands of rural or urban areas, prepare a register showing estimated minimum value of the land/properties of that category as per procedure laid down in rule 6." 6. From a plain reading of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that the District Collector is required to prepare a register showing estimated minimum value of the land/property according to the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 of the said Rules. The order impugned has been passed by the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him under this rule, which is within his jurisdiction. 7. Mr. Singh, then contends that Rule 5 of the Rules is repugnant to Section 78 of the Act. I do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Singh. As stated earlier, Section 78 of the Registration Act operates in the field of fees payable for the registration of the documents whereas Rule 5 of the Rules is in relation to preparation of a register to show estimated minimum value of the land. There is no repugnancy in between them. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. No cost.