Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Since questions of law and facts involved in all these Revision Petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 1283 of 2003. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 30.10.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Yamunanagar and the order dated 20.08.2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. 3. The petitioners purchased land by virtue of different sale deeds noticed in the impugned orders. The sale deeds were duly registered and documents handed over to the petitioners. After some time, the Joint Sub Registrar, Bilaspur, forwarded a letter to the Collector, Yamunanagar, stating therein that the documents bear deficient stamp duty and the stamp duty is recoverable under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act The Collector summoned the vendees and passed the order for recovery of the alleged deficient stamp duty on the ground that the sale consideration has been shown less than the Collector rates. 4. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the Collector, Yamunanagar, the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. The Appellate Auhority vide the impugned order dated 20.08.2002 (Annexure P-2) also dismissed the appeals. 5. The primary challenge in these Revision Petitions is in respect to the jurisdiction of the Collector to order recovery after registration of the documents. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Sub Registrar could only refer the documents to the Collector for deficient stamp duty at the time of registration and once the document is registered and handed over to the vendees, the Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to request the Collector to determine the duty nor the Collector has any jurisdiction to determine the stamp duty/registration fee after the registration of the documents. This controversy is settled by a judgment of this Court rendered on 02.12.1998 in Civil Revision No.3110 of 1997 (State of Haryana v. Om Pal andanother), wherein the following observations have been made:- "I have heard counsel for the parties. This controversy is settled by a judgment of this Court rendered on 02.12.1998 in Civil Revision No.3110 of 1997 (State of Haryana v. Om Pal andanother), wherein the following observations have been made:- "I have heard counsel for the parties. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Rajinder Kumar Mittal and another versus State of Punjab and another, 1995(2) Civil Court Cases (P&H), 531, there is no provision in the Act where under deficient stamp duty can be recovered by the registering authority either from the vendor or from the vendee subsequent to and after the registration of the sale deed. A similar view was taken by this Court in Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(3). S.L.J. 1747 and in M/s Ravindera Pharmaceutical Private Limited v. The State of Haryana and others, 1994 P.L.J., 264. Following these judgments the lower appellate Court, in my opinion, rightly interpreted with and set aside the order of the District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Kurukshetra which on the face of it is without jurisdiction." 6. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Beam Singh and others (CR No.3530 of 1995) decided on 06.08.2009 wherein following observations have been made:- "Sub section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act clearly provides for reference to the Collector as soon as the Registering Officer registers the document and is of the opinion that the value fixed for determining the stamp duty is less than the market value. The Collector on receipt of the reference is required to determine the market value, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of Sub Section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act. In the present case, this procedure was not adopted. The Registering Officer, after registration of the documents handed over the same to the vendees and it is only thereafter that he made the reference to the Collector. In the present case, this procedure was not adopted. The Registering Officer, after registration of the documents handed over the same to the vendees and it is only thereafter that he made the reference to the Collector. Sub Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act further empowers the Collector to initiate proceedings either on the receipt of the reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 in whose jurisdiction, the property is situated or on the receipt of the report of the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government or suo moto, within a period of three years from the date of registration of the instruments. In the present case, the Collector initiated the proceedings on reference being made by the Registering Officer after he had handed over the document to the vendee. None of the situation contemplated under sub sections (1) or (3) of Section 47-A has been adopted. The appellate authority has rightly allowed the appeals. I find no merit in these revision petitions which are accordingly dismissed." 7. In view of the above legal position, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, these Revision Petitions are allowed. 8. The impugned orders in all these petitions are hereby set aside with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed on the record of each connected file.