JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 22/07/97 (Ann.2) of Collector (Stamps)-II, Jaipur and so also notice dated 02/01/99 (Ann.6). 2. As alleged, petitioner is running a shop in the name & style of M/s Ghormal Johri Lal situated in Ward No.8 of Gangapur City, which was earlier being run by his father. Size of the shop is 16.6 x 9.6 = 17.04 sq. yard out of which, petitioner purchased 3/4 share (13.5 sq.yard) of Girraj Prasad Agrawal, of whom petitioner was tenant, through registered sale deed dated 09/01/92 against consideration of Rs.51,000/- while paying stamp duty of Rs.5530/- on 25/09/92 as is evident from xerox copy of sale deed (Ann.1) produced along with writ petition. After five years of sale deed being registered (Ann.1) and document was released, Collector (Stamps)-II, Jaipur passed order on 22/07/97 (Ann.2); from which it appears that earlier notice under Section 47A-(3) of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 as adapted in Rajasthan ("Act, 1899") was issued to Kedarlal and not to the petitioner in whose favour sale deed (Ann.1) was registered; and since Kedarlal did not appear despite service, ex parte proceedings were initiated. Finally vide order dated 22/07/97 (Ann.2) market value of property under registered sale deed (Ann.1) was assessed at Rs.9.26 lacs and accordingly petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs.1,10,050/- towards deficit stamp duty & fees of registration. When this fact came to notice of petitioner, application was filed for setting aside ex parte proceedings alleged initiated against him but the same was rejected vide order dated 21/12/98 (Ann.5) on the premise that notice was also issued to him but failed to appear, for which there was no explanation to justify his non-appearance despite notice being served on 18/01/96 and in pursuance whereof, notice dated 02/01/99 (Ann.6) was also issued to petitioner for depositing deficit stamp duty in terms of order impugned (Ann.2). Hence instant petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that rejection of application vide order (Ann.5) for setting aside ex parte proceedings initiated against him despite notice having never been served upon him, is not legally sustainable and action of the respondents was in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence instant petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that rejection of application vide order (Ann.5) for setting aside ex parte proceedings initiated against him despite notice having never been served upon him, is not legally sustainable and action of the respondents was in violation of principles of natural justice. On merits, Counsel submits that rates prescribed by district level committee (DLC) in regard to Tehsil Gangapur City vide Ann.4 in the year 1992-93 when the sale deed (Ann.1) was executed & presented for registration before sub-registrar, was Rs.3448/- per sq.yd for commercial buildings situated in Ward No.8 and stamps duty which the petitioner paid was in consonance with the DLC rates prescribed for Gangapur City and what was assessed by respondents vide order impugned assessing value of commercial immovable property under sale deed in question at Rs.9.26 lacs was without any basis and it does not disclose as to on what premise, property was so highly valued; in such circumstances, order impugned & notice issued thereunder is wholly arbitrary and in violation of the Scheme of Act, 1899. Counsel further submits that once the document after registration is returned then there could be no question for making a reference to the Collector. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Shankar lal v. State (2006(3) WLC (Raj.) 390). 4. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition raising objection with regard to availability of remedy of revision U/r 73 Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 ("Rules, 1955") and that apart it has been averred that the shop in question is situated in Ward No.13 of Gangapur City and not in Award No.8, as alleged by the petitioner; and as such what has been assessed by the authority is certainly in accordance with material available on record. 5. I have considered submissions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance examined material on record. As regards objection raised by respondents about availability of remedy available to petitioner, suffice is to say that notice was issued on 26/04/99 and after service of notices, and filing of the reply by respondents, instant petition was admitted for hearing on 11/08/05. The matter has been heard at length. There is no dispute on the question of fact being required to be examined in instant petition. The matter has been heard at length. There is no dispute on the question of fact being required to be examined in instant petition. After this petition having remained pending for almost a decade, now this Court does not consider it just and proper to dismiss the petition merely on the objection raised by respondents on account of availability of remedy available to petitioner against the order impugned. 6. As regards merits, instrument (Ann.1) presented by petitioner was registered on 09/01/92 and was returned to him. After almost five years of instrument being released, proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 were initiated by respondents and order impugned (Ann.2) was passed on 22/07/97. 7. As regards scope of S.47A of the Act, 1899, it has been examined by this Court in Shankar lal v. State (supra) ad infra: "8. From reading of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 it is clear that an instrument relating to an immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument, the registering officer has, while registering the instrument, reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after or before registering the instrument, send it in original to the Collector for determination of the market value and to assess and charge the duty. From a reading of the provision it is clear that while making a reference to the Collector the registering authority before or after registering the instrument is required to send the document in original to the Collector for determination of market value and for making assessment of the duty required to be charged. Once a document is registered and returned to the party concerned then the document in its original cannot be sent to the Collector for exercising powers to determine and assess the stamp duty. In the present case, the original document was returned to the petitioner after its registration, therefore, the original document was with the petitioner and registering authority was not at all in position to send the same to the Collector as prescribed under section 47-A(1) of the Act of 1899. The sending of original document to the Collector is a mandatory conditions and in absence of it, no reference is competent. The sending of original document to the Collector is a mandatory conditions and in absence of it, no reference is competent. In view of it, the Sub-Registrar was not at all competent to initiate the proceedings under section 47A of Act of 1899 under the notice dated 1.12.1992. The notice impugned therefore is incompetent. " In the light of judgment (supra), once document was released on 09/01/92 proceedings were initiated against petitioner at much belated stage after more than four years and in the facts of instant case, proceedings against petitioner could not have been initiated under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 as very initiation whereof was incompetent. 8. Even that apart, there was no material available being placed by respondents which may disclose as to on what basis, value of immovable property sold under instrument (Ann.1) was assessed at Rs.9.26 lacs. On the other hand, petitioner placed material on record that DLC rates notified by State Government in regard to assessment of immovable property of commercial nature situated in Ward No.8, Gangapur City was of Rs.3448/- per sq. yd., while as alleged by respondents in their own reply, the immovable property is situated in Ward No.13 of Gangapur City, and if that is taken note of, DLC rate prescribed for commercial property in Ward No.13 of Gangapur City was of Rs.1059/- per sq.yd. Even on merits, value assessed of immovable property by the authority was otherwise not legally sustainable. Thus, question of under-valuing the property under sale deed (Ann.1) in the facts (supra) does not arise and that apart, order impugned (Ann.2) is wholly cryptic and does not disclose application of mind of the authority while deciding quasi judicial proceedings. 9. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 22/07/97 (Ann.2) and consequential notice dated 02/01/99 (Ann.6) are hereby quashed & set aside. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed *******