Judgment :- (1). IN execution of a decree, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) put up a piece and parcel of land measuring 1.34 acre more or less together with buildings, structures, plants and machineries, fittings and fixtures (being a cold storage situate at Police Station Raina, Mouza-Maskhanda, District-Burdwan comprised in J. L. No. 3, Khatian No. 88, 585,589, Plot no. 177) (hereafter the said property) for public auction. The petitioner was adjudged the highest bidder. It deposited Rs. 40 lakhs with the Tribunal being the consideration amount. A sale certificate was duly issued by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. By an order dated 20. 12. 05, the Receiver appointed by the Tribunal was directed to execute a formal deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, deed was executed on 25. 1. 06 and the same was presented for registration before the additional Registrar of Assurances, III at Kolkata. It is claimed by the petitioner that although the deed was provisionally registered and stamp duty amounting to rs. 44,080/-had been deposited on the said sum of Rs. 40 lakhs, the Additional registrar on the plea that the said property had been undervalued had called upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3 crores (approx).. The petitioner has challenged this computation on the ground that the same is unreasonable, incorrect, bad and arbitrary. (2). ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the said property had been purchased by the petitioner in public auction and the said property had been valued by a valuer appointed by the Tribunal, there is no question of the petitioner defrauding the Government of revenue by making payment of less amount of stamp duty. Provisions contained in Entry 18 of the Schedule to the stamp Act as well as several authorities ( AIR 2001 Cal 76 : Nitya Hari Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and AIR 2006 A. P. 383 : M/s. Tungabhadra Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Registrar and Collector) have been relied on in support of such contention. (3). Provisions contained in Entry 18 of the Schedule to the stamp Act as well as several authorities ( AIR 2001 Cal 76 : Nitya Hari Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and AIR 2006 A. P. 383 : M/s. Tungabhadra Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Registrar and Collector) have been relied on in support of such contention. (3). LEARNED Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, has contended that entry 18 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act would not be applicable in the present case but that Entry 23 thereof would be applicable and there being just and reasonable cause for the Registrar not to accept the stamp duty paid by the petitioner, assessment of market value of the said property at Rs. 3,25,95,690/ had duly been made upon physical enquiry on 17.2.2006 in the presence of the petitioner. He also contended by relying on the decision reported in AIR 1991 mad 82 : R. Thiagasundaram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu that the Registrar is not bound by the valuation made by the valuer appointed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. (4). LEARNED Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard and the authorities cited by them have been considered. (5). THIS Court is of the considered view that the Registering Authority appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 having expressed reasons to believe that the market value of the said property has not been truly set forth in the instrument [though notice in form V appended to the West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instrument) Rules, 2001 (hereafter the Rules) calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty has not been served on it], it would not be proper for this Court to determine on this petition as to whether the petitioner would be liable to pay deficit stamp duty as claimed or not. In terms of provisions contained in the said Rules, the petitioner if aggrieved by the assessment of the market value of the property has the right of having the issue determined by the collector on a reference being made by the Registering Authority in terms of provisions contained in Section 47a of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal amendment ). In State of West Bengal vs Nuruddin Mallick reported in (1998) 8 SCC 143 , the Apex Court has ruled that in exercise of powers of judicial review, the courts can either direct the statutory authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when exercised, to see whether it has been validly exercised and that it would be inappropriate for the court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter. Admittedly, the concerned authorities have not discharged their statutory duties and on the authority of the aforesaid ruling, it would not be open to the Writ court to substitute its view for the view which the authorities under the statute are obliged to record at the first instance. For this reason, this Court is loath to examine the issue raised by the petitioner at this stage. (6). INTEREST of justice would be best served if the writ petition is disposed of with directions. Since the petitioner is disputing the claim of the Registering Authority in relation to payment of deficit stamp duty, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the Registering Authority to make appropriate reference to the Collector for determination of the market value of the said property under section 47a (3) of the Stamp Act read with the said Rules in the manner specified therein and upon due notice to the petitioner. On a reference being received, the collector or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than 12 weeks from receipt of such reference. (7). BE it recorded that this Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy raised and all points are left open to be urged by the petitioner before the concerned authority. (8). THE petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this petition assessed at 60 GMs to be paid by the respondents.