JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - The petitioner-Company purchased land measuring 159 bighas, 19 biswas, vide registered sale deed dated 30th June, 2016. The value of the land purchased was ` 21,80,85,000/- plus building and boundary valuing ` 19,42,000/-, i.e. total valuing ` 22,00,27,000/-. The petitioner is said to have paid the registration fee of ` 44,00,600/- and affixed stamp valuing ` 66,00,900/-. The petitioners case appears to be that while determining the registration charges, Sub Registrar at Baddi, District Solan, did not follow the Collector''s Rate as contained in the Revenue Department''s Notification dated 13th June, 2012, whereby, the classification of the land for valuation purposes has been prescribed. It is claimed that the land purchased by the petitioner-Company fell in different categories, hence, corresponding stamp duty ought to have been levied. In this manner, the petitioner claims that an excess amount of ` 48,76,350/- has been charged from the petitioner. 2. A representation to this effect was made by the petitioner-Company to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on 08.08.2016, copy of which is appended as Annexure P-10. It further appears that Registrar, Solan, also vide letter dated 02.06.2016, Annexure P-7, sent a report to the Inspector General of Registration, Himachal Pradesh, to the effect that a compact chunk of the land purchased by the petitioner could not be classified in different categories as there was no such provision made in the software, under which, the registration is made through online system. 3. Be that as it may, no decision taken on the above mentioned representation has been conveyed to the petitioner so far. 4. Whether the petitioner was asked to levy stamp duty in accordance with the above Notification and as per the market value of the land, is essentially a question of fact. It is therefore, not necessary to express any view on merits and suffice it would be to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Solan, to pass a speaking order on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of three months. Ordered accordingly. With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.