JUDGMENT : Chander Bhushan Barowalia, J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, appellant/defendant (hereinafter called defendant) against the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter called plaintiff) assailing the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. 2. The plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter called plaintiff) maintained a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant/appellant/State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter called defendant) restraining the appellant from recovering the amount of Rs. 12,444/- non judicial stamp fee and Rs. 180/- registration fee as deficiency of fee for sale deed No.311 dated 24.6.1991 registered by the Sub Registrar, Nadaun, District Hamirpur. 3. As per the respondent, he purchased land comprised in khata No.3 min, khatauni No.3 min, khasra No.44, 56, 59, 65, 71, 173, 192, 200, 205, 220, 251 kita 11 measuring 28 kanals 9 marlas and khara No.5, khatauni No.5, khasra No.58, measuring 12 marlas to the extent of 1/3 share measuring 4 marlas, khata No.7, khatauni No.7, khatauni No.7, khasra No.52, measuring 6 marlas to the extent of 1/6 share measuring 1 marla, khara No.8, khatauni No.8, khasra No.70, measuring 6 kanals 19 marlas to the extent of ¼ share measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas, total land measuring 30 kanals 7 marlas situated in Tika Kahi-Di-Balh, Tappa Jassai, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamipur, for a consideration of Rs. 41,000/- and registered sale deed No.311 dated 24.6.1991 before Sub Registrar, Nadaun. It is averred that non-judicial stamp fee amounting to Rs. 4920/- was affixed and registration fee amounting to Rs. 822/- was also paid. It is further averred by the plaintiff that audit was conducted by the audit party in the office of Sub Registrar, Nadaun, which pointed out deficiency of Rs. 15,900/- in the payment of non-judicial stamp fee and Rs. 180/- as registration fee on the aforesaid registered document dated 24.6.1991. 4. Feeling aggrieved from the findings of the learned Appellate Court upholding the findings of the learned trial Court, the State of Himachal Pradesh maintained present Regular Second Appeal on the ground that learned Courts below has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Resultantly, judgment/decree has been passed without jurisdiction. The learned Court below has failed to take into consideration average value of the land on which the stamp duty was to be affixed. Resultantly, judgment/decree has been passed without jurisdiction. The learned Court below has failed to take into consideration average value of the land on which the stamp duty was to be affixed. The learned Courts below has failed to appreciate Ex.P-3, the order of District Collector-cum- Registrar, Hamirpur, to its true prospective. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the concurrent findings of the learned Court below needs no inference by this Court as the same are based upon the correct appreciation of the facts and the law has been correctly applied. 6. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the question of law:- 1. Whether the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking injunction in absence of any declaration sought is maintainable? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower court is without jurisdiction in view of provisions of Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899? 3. Whether the order passed by the District Collector, Hamirpur, under Section 47-A is legally valid and still in operation in absence of any challenge to the same? 4. Whether the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a complete code in itself and bars civil court jurisdiction? 7. As far as the purchase of land in question for a sum of Rs. 41,000/- in Tika Kahi-Di-Bahal, Tappa Jassai, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, on 24.6.1991, vide registered sale deed No.311 and affixation of the stamp fee to the tune of Rs. 4920/- and payment of the registration fee to the tune of Rs. 820/- is concerned there is no dispute. As per the defendant, District Collector, Hamirpur, has revised the market value of the aforesaid land and order was passed to that effect which is Ex.P-3. The sale deed was executed/registered on the basis of 5 years average cost reflected in Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 pertaining to Tika- Kahi-Di-Bahal. Perusal of order Ex.P-3 shows that it was without any basis and no reasons are there. The details and the reasons on the basis of which the market value of the land purchased by the plaintiff has been increased vide Ex.P-3 are neither found mentioned in Ex.P-3 nor brought before the learned Courts below. It is on record that the sale deed was executed on the basis of 5 years average cost Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 pertaining to Tika-Kahi-Di-Bahal from 16.6.1981 till 15.6.1986. It is on record that the sale deed was executed on the basis of 5 years average cost Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 pertaining to Tika-Kahi-Di-Bahal from 16.6.1981 till 15.6.1986. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are also prepared by the public servant during the discharge of their regular official duties and there is nothing on record to suggest that Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were prepared in a wrong and fraudulent manner. The Courts below were within their jurisdiction to rely upon the documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 especially when the order of District Collector Ex.P-3 is without reasons. 8. Further the retrospective effect cannot be given to Ex.P-3, as it was subsequent to the sale deed in question. It is a matter of common knowledge that for the purpose of registration of sale deed the average value of the land sold to be taken into consideration at the time of registration of the sale deed and the sale deed already executed in the same revenue estate are also to be taken into consideration. If no sale deed have been executed in that revenue estate then the sale deed of the adjoining revenue estate is to be taken into consideration for working out the average sale price. However, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are the average sale price of the same revenue estate where the land involved in the sale deed No.311 dated 24.6.1991 is situated. The average value of per marla and per kanal has been shown to be Rs. 48.28, Rs. 80.99 and Rs. 965.60 and Rs. 1619.80, respectively. There is a difference between the average value and the market value which has to be taken into consideration at the time of registration of sale deed qua the immovable property. The plaintiff has already affixed non judicial stamp fee to the tune of Rs. 4920/- and has paid registration fee to the tune of Rs. 822/- on the actual sale consideration of Rs. 41,000/-. The deficiency pointed out during audit in the office of Sub Registrar, Nadaun, on the basis of market value and further deficiency pointed out by the Registrar-cum-District Collector on the basis of market value assessed through Tehsildar, Nadaun, is not proper as sale consideration by the plaintiff paid by him in consonance with the average price as per certificates of Patwari Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 has not been taken into consideration. Ex.P-3 can be made prospective in operation, but it cannot be made operational retrospectively, because of this reason, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to pay sum of Rs. 12,444/- qua the sale deed No.311 executed in his favour on 24.6.1991 with respect to the land in question situated in Tika Kahi-Di-Bahal, Tappa Jassai, Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur. 9. In these circumstances, the question of law No.1 is answered. Suit of the plaintiff is maintainable and does not bar under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 10. As discussed above, the average value as calculated by the District Collector, vide order Ex.P-3 which is unreasoned without any basis. So, it cannot be said that the same is still in operation as the same was agitated and the findings has come against the order of District Collector and the findings are as per law. 11. As far as question No.4 is concerned when the action of the respondent is totally unreasoned without jurisdiction there cannot be a bar to the Civil jurisdiction and this matter already stand settled in many judicial pronouncement starting from AIR 1990 Privy Council 105, titled Secretary of State vs. Mask & Co., wherein it has been held that it is also well settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. So, the point is answered against the appellant. 12. In view of the above discussions hereinabove, the appeal is not maintainable as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 423 titled Satya Gupta (Smt) Alias Madhu Gupta versus Brijesh Kumar, wherein it has been held as under:- “16. At the outset, we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the lower appellate court as a final court of facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. At the outset, we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the lower appellate court as a final court of facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position, we are of the view that the High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusion reached by the lower appellate court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on facts on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view on the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate court another view was possible.” After applying the law given to the present case, it is clear that the appeal of the appellant is without merits. 13. As discussed above, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any shall also stands disposed of.