JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral:- This order shall dispose of C.R. Nos.1217, 1218 and 1219 of 2007 titled as Dharam Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, Dharam Kaur v. State of Punjab and others and Fauja Singh v. State of Punjab and others, respectively, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. 2. For facility facts are being taken from C.R. No.1217 of 2007. 3. The petitioner purchased the land in village Pandori Bainsa by way of sale deed for a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- and the sale deed was registered on 15.11.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that no objection with regard to the valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp duty was raised by the Joint Sub Registrar and as such no reference was made by him to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4. The Collector Gurdaspur, entertained a complaint made by Sant Masih wherein it was alleged that Avtar Singh, Santokh Singh, Ratan Singh and Jasbir Singh all sons of Darshan Singh resident of village Katowal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur had executed an agreement of sale on 30.10.2000 to sell their land measuring 96 Kanals 15 marlas with one Fauja Singh son of Harman Singh and Smt. Darshan Kaur wife of Fauja Singh resident of village Bhattian, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. Out of which parties executed a sale deed of land measuring 45 kanals 5 marlas on 15.11.2000 for a consideration of Rs.3,52,000/- and executed two other sale deeds on 21.11.2000 for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. It was also alleged that the parties paid stamp duty and registration fee. The complainant claimed that he is witness to the agreement executed between the parties. The complaint was also referred by the Joint Sub-Registrar to the Collector vide letter dated 29.12.2000. Certified copies of the documents i.e. the registered sale deeds were also sent. 5. The Collector sent notices to the respondents i.e. the vendors, Avtar Singh, Santokh Singh, Ratan Singh and Jasbir Singh sons of Darshan Singh resident of village Katowal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and vendees namely Fauja Singh son of Harnam Singh and Smt. Darshan Kaur wife of Fauja Singh. Service was also effected through proclamation in the village and the registered notices were also sent to the parties. Service was also effected through proclamation in the village and the registered notices were also sent to the parties. No body appeared and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them by the Collector, Gurdaspur. The Collector recorded the statement of the complainant, Anchal Singh, Deed Writer, Anil Aggarwal and Navtej Singh Sodhi, Joint Sub Registrar, Dinanagar. 6. The Sub Registrar stated that the factum of agreement of sale came to his knowledge only on 20.12.2000 on receipt of the complaint and the matter was referred to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act. It was also stated in evidence that the parties have avoided the stamp duty. Deed writer was examined who admitted having executed the agreement. Entries in the Register of Deed Writer were also examined. 7. On appreciation of evidence the learned Collector help that the sale deed were undervalued and calculated the deficient stamp duty and registration fee and ordered the recovery of the same from the petitioner. The prosecution was also recommended. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (ad-hoc) Gurdaspur and it was claimed that the petitioner was not served with any notice in inquiry by the learned Collector and thus, it was claimed that the proceedings were hit by principles of natural justice. However, this plea was rejected by the learned Additional District judge after perusal of the record which showed that in spite of intimation and repeated notices the appellant did not care to attend the Court of Collector. It was also noticed that the report of the Process Server showing service was witnessed by the independent witnesses and thus, came to the conclusion that no fault could be found with the ex-parte proceedings. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the sale deed was registered on 22.11.2000 the reference made on 29.12.2000 was without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abinav Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 91, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down that recovery reference can only be made immediately after the registration of document or in the course of registration of documents and the reference made after 8 days of the registration was not in accordance with law. 10. 10. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by taking into consideration the provisions of section 47-A(1)(2) and (3) of the Indian Stamp Act which are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-­ “47-A. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with.- (1) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon; and (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (3) The Collector may, suo-motu or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a district appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No.16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is the subject matter of the instrument, is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other acts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, alter giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and .the deficient amount of duty, would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty”. 11. Learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the action taken by learned Collector was under Section 47-A(3) i.e. on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant directly to the Collector as also the one submitted by the Joint Registrar and thus, dismissed the appeal. The plea that the amount could not be ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue was also rejected. 12. Mr. M.S. Lobana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the learned Collector as well as the learned Appellate Authority wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that reference can be made to the Collector for determining the market value of the property if the value is shown to be less which should be less than the minimum determined in accordance with the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that reference can be made to the Collector for determining the market value of the property if the value is shown to be less which should be less than the minimum determined in accordance with the Act. Then such reference is required to be made soon after the registration of the document. The contention, therefore, was that the Collector can only act as per the provisions of Section 47-A(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 13. Mr. Lobana, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in this case references have been made after more than a month, therefore, were liable to be rejected. However, this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the limitation to take action under Section 47-A(3) is three years. 14. The reading of section 47-A(3) shows that in two contingencies jurisdiction can be exercised i.e. on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of District. The Collector may also suo motu take action. 15. Provision of Section 47-A(3) does not specifically mention that the exercise of powers suo motu is to be done by him or it can also be at the instance of aggrieved party or any other person. Thus, it would be immaterial whether the Collector is moved by the Registrar or any person uninterested, interested or aggrieved. Thus, no fault can be found with the cognizance taken by the Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, deserves to be rejected. 16. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was served on the petitioner by any prescribed mode of service either personally or by proclamation at permanent address of the petitioner as given in the sale deed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal along with an application was filed beyond the period of limitation and in the said application for condonation of delay a specific stand was taken that the petitioner was not served. The said application was allowed. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal along with an application was filed beyond the period of limitation and in the said application for condonation of delay a specific stand was taken that the petitioner was not served. The said application was allowed. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that once the application for condonation of delay was allowed it has to be presumed that the allegations levelled therein stood accepted and it has to be held that no notice was issued. However, this plea also cannot be accepted. The courts take liberal view with regard to the condonation of delay. The reason being that by condoning the delay the parties get a right to get the matter adjudicated on merit. The same standard can not be applied for disposal of appeal. Learned Additional District Judge on perusal of the file has recorded a positive finding that the petitioner was duly served and the report of Process Server was duly witnessed by independent witnesses. 18. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the documents were undervalued. This plea also cannot be accepted as the evidence of the witnesses examined proved the fact that the document was undervalued. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector had not satisfied himself about the service on the plea that the petitioner was residing at some other village also cannot be accepted in view of the positive evidence brought on record showing service of notice. 19. In view of what has been observed above, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. Petition dismissed. ----------------