JUDGMENT : DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. This petition by the State is directed against the judgement dated 4th June, 2008 delivered by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 59-S/13 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Collector was quashed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent here-in purchased some land in Tehsil Nalagarh and sale deed No. 437 was executed and registered on 21.4.2003. No objection with regard to the deficiency of stamp duty was raised at that time. However, later the Sub Registrar himself issued notice to the respondent claiming that the stamp duty was deficient. Thereafter, it appears that the Sub Registrar made a reference to the Registrar who in turn made a reference to the Collector of the District. On the basis of this reference a notice was issued to the respondent asking him to show cause why the stamp duty should not be enhanced. In this notice reference was made to Section 47 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the State of Himachal Pradesh. These proceedings were contested by the respondent and finally the Collector by a very short and cryptic order directed that deficient stamp duty of Rs.3,73,860/- be recovered from the respondent. The order reads as follows:- "15.10.2007: Called. Sh. H.R. Sharma, counsel for the respondent and none for the State. The case was fixed for 22.9.2007 taken up today vide court notice placed on the case file. The sale deed No. 437 dated 21.4.2003 has been examined. In view of the Audit observations, the proper under transaction sold for business purpose therefore the same is assessed for Rs.56,15,500/- and deficient stamp duty of Rs.3,73,860/- be recovered from the respondent. A copy of this order be sent to the Tehsildar, Nalagarh for necessary compliance. The file after completion be consigned to the G.R.R." 3. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal in terms of Section 47-A (5) of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. This appeal has been allowed by the learned District Judge. The file after completion be consigned to the G.R.R." 3. This order was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal in terms of Section 47-A (5) of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. This appeal has been allowed by the learned District Judge. The District Judge came to the conclusion that though the procedure followed by the Collector does not suffer from any legal infirmity but the determination of market price arrived at by him is without any basis and does not stand judicial scrutiny. He, therefore, quashed the order. It has been urged on behalf of the State and rightly so that the learned District Judge could not have stopped there. Assuming that the Collector did not properly evaluate the value of the suit land it was necessary after quashing the order to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the value of the suit land in accordance with law. 4. Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously argued that notice was issued only under Section 47-A (1) of the Act and he submits that such notice by the Sub Registrar can only be issued at the time of registration and not at the later stage. He submits that the notice issued under Section 47-A is illegal and the matter should not be remanded. Section 47-A (1), (2) and (3) read as follows:- 47-A. Instrument under-valued, how to be dealt with.- (1) If the Registering Officer, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument relating to the transfer of any property, has reason to believe that the market value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the market value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. (1) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules, made under this Act, determine the market value or consideration and the duty, as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by person liable to pay the duty. (2) The Collector may, suo moto, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument, is situated, appointed under the Registration Act 1908, shall, within three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its market value or consideration as the case may be when the duty payable thereon and if, after such examination, he has reason to believe that market value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value or consideration and the duty, as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub section (2) and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay duty. Provided that nothing in this sub section shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of commencement of the Indian Stamp (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1908. 5. Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgement of this Court in Harcharan Singh Gill v. State of H.P. and others, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) (DB) 489. In this case this Court after making reference to the provisions of Section 47-A held as follows:- "4. What clearly emerges from the plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law is that with respect to an instrument which has already been registered, Collector alone is the authority who has the jurisdiction to enquire into any aspect relating to the short payment of duty on the ground of under valuation of the market value or the consideration. The Collector has jurisdiction to do so suo motu or on receipt of an appropriate reference from either the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908. The Collector has jurisdiction to do so suo motu or on receipt of an appropriate reference from either the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908. What actually has happened in the present case is that Sub Registrar, Kasauli respondent No. 3 in this petition took upon himself the burden of issuing the impugned notice dated 17.1.2003 wherein by making a reference to some audit report he demanded of the petitioner remittance of an amount of Rs.1,26,270/- and despite a detailed representation sent by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 5.3.2003 rejecting the said representation directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in question. Sub Registrar had no jurisdiction whatsoever in either issuing the notice or in passing any order directing the petitioner to pay the amount in question because neither under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act nor under any other provision of the law he had the power to do so. Actually, as is clearly discernible from Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, Sub Registrar does not figure anywhere and he has no role to play with respect to any issue or matter relating to the under valuation of the price of the property or its consideration or the duty payable thereon or the deficiency in the duty. The procedure prescribed under Section 47-A being complete does not stipulate any role for Sub-Registrar. He cannot even make a reference to the Collector. What he does with the District Registrar internally (with which we are not concerned) but the reference to the Collector can be made either by the Inspector General of Registration or by the District Registrar." 6. In my considered opinion this judgement is not at all applicable to the present case. In the case before the Division Bench it was the Sub Registrar himself who had issued notice and who had determined the valuation of the land and also determined the deficiency in court fees. This obviously could not be done by the Sub Registrar after he had already registered the sale deed since Section 47-A (1) provides that the Sub Registrar can only determine the deficiency, if any, at the time of registration. 7. This obviously could not be done by the Sub Registrar after he had already registered the sale deed since Section 47-A (1) provides that the Sub Registrar can only determine the deficiency, if any, at the time of registration. 7. No doubt the proceedings were apparently initiated under Section 47-A (1) but if the matter is gone through in detail it is apparent that the Collector was in fact exercising powers under Section 47-A (3) and not under Section 47- A (1). In fact, Section 47-A (1) provides that if at the time of registration of the instrument the Registering Officer comes to the conclusion that the market value of the consideration is not truly reflected in the document whereby such property has been transferred he may after registering the instrument refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of consideration. 8. Section 47-A (3) on the other hand provides that the Collector may suo-motu or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District may decide the proper value of the property concerned. 9. I have gone through the file of the Collector and I find that in fact the Sub Registrar, Nalagarh who is the registering officer in the case initially sent the matter to the Registrar District Solan. This was not a reference envisaged under Section 47-A (1). The reference under Section 47-A (1) can only be made to the Collector but the registering authority referred the matter to the Registrar of the district concerned. The Registrar of the District after examining the matter came to the prima facie conclusion that it was a fit case for revaluation of the property and thereafter made a reference to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act. The reference was made only under Section 47-A and not any particular sub-section. However, if the scheme of the section is gone through it is apparent that a reference by the registrar is only envisaged under Section 47-A (3). Therefore, this was a reference under Section 47-A (3) and not under Section 47-A (1) and hence the contention of Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel, cannot be accepted. 10. Having held so, it is more than apparent that the Collector has not determined the value of the land himself. Therefore, this was a reference under Section 47-A (3) and not under Section 47-A (1) and hence the contention of Shri Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel, cannot be accepted. 10. Having held so, it is more than apparent that the Collector has not determined the value of the land himself. Any order which affects the rights of the parties must give the reason thereof. The order of the Collector is bereft of any reason. 11. A judicial order must be couched in language stating the reasons which have weighed with the Officer while passing the order. Merely stating the conclusion is not sufficient. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that reasons are the essence of any judicial order. A bare reading of the order of the Collector shows that there was no effort made to analyse the various points raised. It is not necessary in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to give detailed facts of the case. However, reference must be made to the relevant portion of the scheme, contentions of the parties and whether the order of the Officer which is under challenge is legal or not. The question involved was not trivial. Rights of the parties are involved. The Collector was required to give reasons, which he has failed to do so. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Without reasons, it is impossible for this Court to adjudicate as to whether the order of the Collector is correct or not. Since this has not been done, the order of the Collector cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. 12. The Collector was required to discuss the evidence if any led by the parties and the material placed on record and then given his findings along with reasons as to how he reached the valuation of the land. This the collector has not done and to this extent the order is illegal. 13. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned District Judge is partly modified and after quashing the order of the Collector the matter is remanded back to him to determine the market value of the land as on the date of execution of the sale deed after making reference to the evidence and material, if any, placed on record by the parties. This shall be done after giving the parties an opportunity of addressing arguments. This shall be done after giving the parties an opportunity of addressing arguments. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 28th October, 2010. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the Collector is returned so as to reach well before the date fixed. No order as to costs.