These two writ petitions have been filed, challenging the common order dated 17.01.2002 passed in Stamp Revision No. 7 of 2000-2001 and Stamp Revision No.8 of 2000-2001, confirming the orders dated 7.3.2000 passed in Case No. 172/1597 and 173/1598 under Section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid orders dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Addi­tional District Magistrate (Transgomti), Lucknow, wherein the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 2,66,900/- plus penalty of the like amount, in total Rs.5,33,800/- has been di­rected to be made good by the petitioner No. 2 in Case Nos. 172/1597 and 173/1598, sepa­rately. 2. Heard Mr. T.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Stand­ing Counsel and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner No. 1 is a recognized educa­tion institution (Girls Degree College). The petitioner college for its charitable and educational purposes had taken a lease of 1 bigha 5 biswa of land, situated at village Para, Pergana Tehsil and District Lucknow bear­ing Khasras No. 1365 and 1366 for a period of 90 years by two separate lease-deeds on a yearly rent of Rs.3000/- per year from its owners' Sri Chandrika Prasad and Ashok Kumar as well as Smt. Ramawati, vide lease-deed dated 6.1.1998, respectively. 4. The petitioner had presented the afore­said lease-deeds enclosing the stamp duty of Rs.5100/- calculating on the valuation of land as Rs.3500/- on the basis of premium of Rs.5000/- and annual rent of Rs.3000/- as was prescribed in the Stamp Act, in the office of opposite party No. 3/Sub-Registrar/Deputy Registrar (Registration), District Lucknow. However, the opposite party No. 3 instead of registering the lease documents referred the matter to the opposite party No. 2 Additional District Magistrate (Transgomti), Lucknow, stating therein that there had been bar for ex­ecution of the lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and even if, the lease is being ex­ecuted it shall be deemed as "conveyance" and the stamp fee shall be paid accordingly, which has not been paid. It was also men­tioned that since the lessee is an educational institution and its purpose for the use of land was not agriculture, hence it shall be deemed to be used for residential purposes. 5. The matter was referred for the inquiry on the valuation and recovery of the deficit stamp duty and the Case Nos. It was also men­tioned that since the lessee is an educational institution and its purpose for the use of land was not agriculture, hence it shall be deemed to be used for residential purposes. 5. The matter was referred for the inquiry on the valuation and recovery of the deficit stamp duty and the Case Nos. 172/1597 and 173/1598, were instituted and notices were issued to the petitioner for. Service and his reply. The reply was submitted by the peti­tioner stating therein that the purpose for the lease of the land was for providing play­ground in the institution and it has not been taken for the personal use or for construction of the building. However, the opposite party No. 2 by the impugned order came to the con­clusion that there is a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.2,66,900/- each, in the two lease-deeds and imposed penalty of Rs.2,66,900/- each and ordered for payment of Rs.5,33,8000/-each, failing which the recovery shall be made as arrears of land revenue. 6. The petitioner had preferred the stamp revisions against the impugned orders dated 7.3.2000 before the opposite party No. 5/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad, un­der Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, which were registered as Revision No. 7 of 2000-2001 and 8 of 2000-2001. The said re­visions were dismissed by the impugned or­der dated 17.1.2002. The petitioner thereafter has filed these two writ petitions before this Court. 7. It is submitted by Mr. T.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 47-A (1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, opposite party No. 3 was duty bound to make orders to pay the deficient stamp duty and return the instrument for presenting again for registra­tion in accordance with the provisions of Sec­tion 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 but the opposite party No. 3 grossly failed to discharge the legal duty. The opposite party No. 3 con­trary to the provisions of Section 47-A (1)(a)(b)©(d) of the Act illegally made the reference to the opposite party No. 2, who also without proper application of mind en­tertained the said reference without compli­ance of sub-section (2) of Section 47-A (un-amended) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinaf­ter referred to as the 'Act'). 8. The opposite party No. 3 con­trary to the provisions of Section 47-A (1)(a)(b)©(d) of the Act illegally made the reference to the opposite party No. 2, who also without proper application of mind en­tertained the said reference without compli­ance of sub-section (2) of Section 47-A (un-amended) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinaf­ter referred to as the 'Act'). 8. It is further submitted that the provisions of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 have not been followed and no inquiry and inspection had been done with regard to the alleged deficiency of stamp. 9. Mr. T. N. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the en­tire proceedings before the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were void ab initio, as Section 47-A of the Act (before amendment by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001) clearly provides that even in the case of under-valuation of the instrument, the instrument is to be registered first and only thereafter reference can be made. 10. He emphasised that the lease-deeds were presented for registration on 6.1.1998 and as such the un-amended provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are applicable in the instant case. The said provision was in fact amended with effect from 20.5.2002 (by U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001). 11. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. Park View Enterprises, reported in 2001 (1) Su­preme Court Cases 742 : (2000 AIR SCW 4557) wherein it has been held that refusal to register an instrument is not permissible un­der Section 35. Further Section 47-A, plainly sets out that an undervalued instrument of conveyance and other similar document is to be referred to the Collector for determination of market value and proper duty payable, af­ter its registration. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court towards the supplementary affidavit filed on 17.11.2009 and the affidavit filed on 14.9.2010. In the supplementary affidavit lease-deed dated 6.1.1998, which was pre­sented for registration is annexed along with the endorsement made by the registering au­thorities, wherein the following words have been mentioned Dwara Nibandhak Sthagit, meaning thereby the registration of document was suspended and it was not registered. In the supplementary affidavit lease-deed dated 6.1.1998, which was pre­sented for registration is annexed along with the endorsement made by the registering au­thorities, wherein the following words have been mentioned Dwara Nibandhak Sthagit, meaning thereby the registration of document was suspended and it was not registered. It was also mentioned that the lease-deed was neither registered nor returned to the petition­ers and the original lease-deed is still in the office of opposite party No. 3. In reply to the supplementary affidavit, in the supplemen­tary counter affidavit it is averred that the lease-deeds in question were accepted for registration by the opposite party No. 3 on 6.1.1998. After acceptance of presentation of a document nothing remains for registration. Due to deficiency in the stamp duty, the origi­nal deed in question was not returned to the petitioners and it was mentioned as P/P (post­pone )/Sthagit by the Registrar in regard to the lease-deed in question. In the affidavit filed on 14.9.2010, the petitioners have annexed the information received from the opposite parties under Right to Information Act, wherein the Deputy Registrar (III), Lucknow by letter dated 21.8.2010 had informed the petitioners under Right to Information Act, 2005 that the lease-deeds were presented for registration on 6.1.1998, which were entered in the Patta registration minute book at serial Nos. 17/1998 and 18/1998, and their registra­tion has been suspended and the matter is pending for determination of deficiency in stamp duty. 13. It is further submitted that the objec­tions filed against the notice in the proceed­ings under Section 47-A/33 of Act, were not properly considered by the opposite party No. 2 and the orders were passed on the very next day after filing of the objections. Moreover, the provisions of U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property), Rules, 1997 have been completely ignored. There is no reason to impose pen­alty in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1998 (1) AWC 403 : (1998 All LJ 1604) wherein it has been held that while exercising power un­der sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the due stamp payable on the instrument as a result of such determina­tion but he has no power to impose penalty. 14. 14. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petitions on the basis of counter affi­davit and supplementary counter affidavit and submitted that there is no illegality in the or­ders under challenge. The instrument in ques­tion was a sale-deed and not a lease-deed and as such the petitioners were liable to pay the stamp duty according to the rate fixed for sale-deed. The alleged lease-deed is not covered within the definition of patta and as such there was a deficiency of stamp duty paid by the petitioners. Moreover, the land in question was not being used for agriculture purpose; and rather the alleged patta was executed for the purposes of playground. The petitioners were afforded full opportunity before pass­ing of the impugned orders. In fact, the peti­tioners have paid the stamp fee on the basis of the deed by which the possession was also handed over to them. In the circumstance the alleged lease-deed was not covered under the definition of the patta and as such there was deficiency in the stamp duty. There is no ille­gality in the procedure adopted by the Sub-Registrar or the Additional Collector. The op­posite party No. 3 was fully empowered un­der Section 47-A of the Act to refer the matter on the question of determination of deficiency of stamp duty to the opposite party No. 2, who on its turn had rightly determined the defi­ciency of stamp duty of Rs.2,66,900/- and the penalty of the same amount has been imposed. 15. It is further submitted that the petition­ers had preferred the Stamp Revisions under Section 56(1) of the Act, which was duly con­sidered by the Revisional Authority and a rea­soned order was passed, which does not re­quire any interference. 16. I have considered the various submis­sions made by the learned counsel for the par­ties. The main legal question involved in these petitions is whether unamended Section 47-A(2) of the Act was applicable at the time of presentation for registration of the instruments in question, and if yes, whether respondent No. 3, who referred the instrument to the op­posite party No. 2 for determination of the deficiency in stamp duty on the basis of the market value of such property and proper duty payable thereon, adopted the correct proce­dure. 17. There is no dispute that the instrument in question i.e. the lease-deeds were presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar/opposite party No. 3 on 6.1.1998. 18. 17. There is no dispute that the instrument in question i.e. the lease-deeds were presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar/opposite party No. 3 on 6.1.1998. 18. As per the definition of lease under In­dian Stamp Act, "Lease" means a lease of im­movable property; and also- (a) a patta; (b) a kabuliyat or other undertaking in writ­ing, not being a counterpart of a lease, to cul­tivate, occupy or pay or deliver rent for im­movable property; © any instrument by which tolls of any description are let; (d) any writing on an application for lease intended to signify that the application is granted; (e) any instrument by which mining lease is granted in respect of minor minerals as de­fined in clause (e) of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; 19. "Conveyance" under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, has been defined as under: "Conveyance".- "Conveyance" includes conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for [by Schedule I, Schedule I-A or Schedule I-B], [as the case may be]. 20. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act deals with the undervaluation of the instru­ment and the procedure required for deter­mination of the deficiency in stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that at the time of presentation of the said in­strument for registration, the following pro­vision of Section 47-A of the Act was appli­cable, which is quoted as under: "[47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc., if under-valued, 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 the market value of the prop­erty], as set forth in such instrument, [is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act], the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) if such registering officer while registering any instrument [on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property], has reason to believe that the mar­ket value of the property which is the subject of such instrument], 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 of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (3) On receipt of a reference under sub­section (1) or sub section (2) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as may be pre­scribed by rules made under this Act, deter­mine the market value of the property which is the subject of the instrument] and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the per­son liable to pay the duty. (4) The Collector may, suo motu, [or on a reference from any Court or from the] [Com­missioner of Stamps or an Additional Com­missioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commis­sioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commis­sioner of Stamps or any Officer authorized by the Board of Revenue in that behalf] within [four years] from the date of registration of any instrument [on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property] not al­ready referred to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying him­self as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject [of such instrument] and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to be­lieve that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in ac­cordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (3). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the per­son liable to pay the duty]" 21. In fact, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was amended by U.P. Act No. 22 of 1998 (w.e.f. 1.9.1998) and by. U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 (w.e.f. 20.5.2002). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the per­son liable to pay the duty]" 21. In fact, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was amended by U.P. Act No. 22 of 1998 (w.e.f. 1.9.1998) and by. U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 (w.e.f. 20.5.2002). For conve­nience the amended Section 47-A of the Act is quoted as under: "[47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument.- [(1)(a) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the prop­erty as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value determined in accor­dance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Regis­tration Act, 1908, shall notwithstanding any­thing contained in the said Act, immediately af­ter presentation of such instrument and before accepting it for registration and taking any ac­tion under Section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under Sec­tion 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as com­puted on the basis of the minimum value deter­mined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908. (b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the instrument is pre­sented again for registration, the registering officer shall certify the endorsement thereon, that the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof and the name and the resi­dence of the person paying them and register the same. © Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause (a) in the form of impressed stamps containing such declaration as may be prescribed. © Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause (a) in the form of impressed stamps containing such declaration as may be prescribed. (d) If any person does not make the pay­ment of deficit stamp duty after receiving the order referred to in clause (a) and presents the instrument again for registration, the reg­istering officer shall, before registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.] (2) On receipt of a reference under sub­section (1) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of the instrument and the duty payable thereon. (3) The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Com­missioner of Stamps or an Additional Com­missioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commis­sioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commis­sioner of Stamps or any Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty pay­able thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. (4) If on enquiry under sub-section (2) and examination under sub-section (3) the Col­lector finds the market value of the property- (i) Truly set forth and the instrument duly stamped, he shall certify by endorsement that it is duly stamped and return it to the person who made the reference; (ii) Not truly set forth and the instrument not duly stamped, he shall require the pay­ment of proper duty or the amount required to make up the deficiency in the same together with a penalty of an amount not exceeding four times the amount of the proper duty or the deficient portion thereof." 22. Since the instruments in question were presented for registration before opposite party No. 3 on 6.1.1998, therefore, at that time unamended provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, were applicable. 23. From the perusal of the records it is evident that the lease-deeds were presented before the opposite party No. 3, who for the reasons recorded in his reference order, thought it proper to refer the matter to the opposite party No. 2 under Section 47-A/33 of the Act. However, the said instrument were not registered and an endorsement was made that the "registration suspended". The refer­ence order does not indicate as to whether the instrument is registered or not. The refer­ence order is, in fact, silent about this very material fact. 24. The perusal of Section 47-A (un­amended) of the Act, clearly indicates that if the market value of any land or property which is the subject of any such instrument is less than the minimum value determined in accordance with rules, the registering of­ficer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of such prop­erty and the proper duty payable thereon. 25. 25. Section 47-A(2) (unamended) of the Act, clearly provides that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if registering officer has reasons to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject of any such instrument, has not been duly set forth in such instrument, he may after regis­tering such instrument refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value refer the same to the Collector for determina­tion of the market value of the such property and the proper duty payable thereon. 26. In fact, under the amended provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, the requirement of registration of instrument before making a reference by the Registering Authority has been taken away and at present there is no such requirement. But, the amendment in Section 47-A of the Act are in prospective in nature and applicable with effect from the date of such amendments. 27. The provisions of Section 47-A (un­amended) of the Act, are very much clear and do not give any infirmity or ambiguity to come to the conclusion, otherwise, and as such I am of the considered opinion that the instruments in question were to be registered first by the Registering Authority and there­after a reference under Section 47-A/33 of the Act was required to be made to the opposite party No. 2. Since, no such registration was done, which is also evident from the informa­tion furnished to the petitioners by letter dated 21.8.2010 of the Deputy Registrar (III), Lucknow, under Right to Information Act, a copy of which has been annexed with the af­fidavit dated 14.9.2010, I am of the consid­ered opinion that the procedure required un­der Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, at the time when the instruments in question were presented for registration was not fol­lowed by the Registering Authority and refer­ence under Section 47-A/33 of the Act was not proper. The proceedings adopted there­after by the opposite parties No. 2 and 5, as such were void ab initio. 28. In view of the above, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 17.01.2002 and 07.03.2000 as contained in Annexures-1 and 7 to the writ petitions, are liable to be quashed and they are hereby quashed. 29. 28. In view of the above, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 17.01.2002 and 07.03.2000 as contained in Annexures-1 and 7 to the writ petitions, are liable to be quashed and they are hereby quashed. 29. The opposite party No. 3 is hereby di­rected to register the instrument in question in accordance with the un-amended provi­sions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act as observed above and only thereafter make a reference under Section 47-A/33 of the Stamps Act, for determination of the de­ficiency of the stamp duty. The opposite party No. 2 thereafter, on any such reference shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 30. The writ petitions are hereby allowed. No orders as to costs. Petitions allowed.