Suneel Kumar Mutoo, C.C.R.A. — The application has sought cancellation of order dated 26 June, 2006 passed by Assistant Collector, Roorkee under section 47-A Indian Stamp Act whereby he found the conveyance deed executed in favour of the applicant in respect of the land in question an un-derstamped and imposed penalty on the applicant besides requiring him to make good the alleged deficiency in payment of the correct stamp duty on the instrument presented for registration. 2. The grounds averred are mainly that the applicant will not aware of the proceedings and hence unable to present his case before the Assistant Collector and that the assessment of the value of the land has been made wrongly. 3. The records of the case with Assistant Collector, Roorkee show that service was made on Shri Karnlesh Garg at Saharanpur. Therefore, it is apparent that the applicant company chose not to join the case before the Assistant Collector for reasons best known to it. 4. I have perused the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Roorkee. He appears to have taken cognisance of facts that occurred after the execution of the instrument, which legally cannot be taken cognisance of when determining the correct value of the land transferred at the time of the execution of the instrument of conveyance. 5. Therefore, it would be best if the Assistant Collector, Roorkee were to hear the applicant and decide the payable stamp duly afresh order dated 20 June, 2006 of Assistant Collector, Roorkee is set aside. The applicant is directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Roorkee on or before 19th August, 2013 with the prayer for adjudication of stamp duty on the impugned instrument afresh. Let the file pertaining to this case of Assistant Collector, Roorkee be returned meanwhile. Application Disposed Of, _____________