JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhayay, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. 2. No one appears for the respondents although vakalatnama of Sri M.H. Qadeer, learned counsel has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 and no counter affidavit has been filed till date. 3. This is a writ petition filed by the State against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Allahabad dated 22.3.2001 in stamp revision under section 56 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899) against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp Agra dated 15.9.1998. 4. Briefly stated the facts which emerge from the pleadings on record are that through a sale deed the land in question measuring 1-11-16 situate at Madiya Katra, Agra was transferred to one Nazir Ahmad by Smt. Saba Nazir. The Sub-Registrar made a reference to the Collector, Agra whereupon notices were issued and objections were filed. The Deputy Commissioner Stamps vide his order dated 15.9.1998 found the deficiency of the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 5,31,000/-. Aggrieved the respondent no.2 filed a stamp revision which has been allowed by the impugned order. 5. The case of the revisionist before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was that there was no reference under Section 47A (1) of the Act, 1899 and therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The second contention was that no spot inspection had been conducted in respect of the land in question. With regard to factual findings the revisional authority has held in the affirmative that there was no reference under Section 47A (1) and secondly that the Sub-Registrar-III had in his statement admitted that there was no spot inspection made. However, the order of the stamp authority which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner reveals that a reference was made by the Sub-Registrar through his report dated 30.6.1997 in respect of three sale deeds. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the stamp authority lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the stamp authority lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. In fact Section 47A (1) (a) mentions that if the market value of any property which is the subject matter of any instrument which is chargeable on 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 require the person liable to pay the stamp duty to pay the deficiency of stamp duty and return the instrument for presenting again. 6. Section 47A (1)(a) reads as under:- "47-1. Under-valuation of instrument.- (1) (a) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on 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. 7. Sub clause (d) provides that if any person does not make the payment of deficit stamp duty after receiving the order and presents the instrument again for registration, the registering officer shall, before registering the instrument refer the same to the Collector for determination of market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon. 8. Sub clause (d) of Section 47A (1) reads as under:- "(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 market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon." 9. The Stamp Collector has clearly recorded a finding that the matter came before him on a reference made by the Sub-Registrar through his report dated 30.6.1997. There is no reference to this report in the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that there was no reference, sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act, 1899 confers powers on the Collector to suo motu initiate proceedings. 10. Sub Section (3) of Section 47A reads as under:- "(3) The Collector may, suo motu, 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 authorised 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 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 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 may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of he instruments on which duty is chargeable on market value of the property." 11. Therefore, on the question of jurisdiction, in my opinion, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has committed a grave error in ignoring the provisions of Section 47A and its subsections referred to here in above and he has illegally held that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. 12. Therefore, on the question of jurisdiction, in my opinion, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has committed a grave error in ignoring the provisions of Section 47A and its subsections referred to here in above and he has illegally held that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. 12. On the question that there was no spot inspection and this fact was admitted by the Sub-Registrar-III, in my opinion, if the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was satisfied that there was no spot inspection, he ought to have remanded the matter to the stamp authority (Deputy Commissioner, Stamps) directing him to conduct a spot inspection and thereafter proceed with the matter. In the present case, I find that on the finding that there was no spot inspection, what the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has done is that he has simply set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and not remanded the matter to the stamp authority. 13. For reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.3.2001 is absolutely illegal order and cannot survive and is accordingly, quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed. 15. matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Agra Range, Agra/Stamp Authority to proceed with the matter considering the observations made above and pass fresh order after giving due notice to the respondent No. 2.