( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court dated August 10, 1994 made in C. R. No. 2836/94 dismissing the revision filed by the State on 5-2-1990. When the respondents had gone to the high Court by way of writ petition, it had given liberty to the respondents to file an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was accordingly filed before the Additional District Judge at Gurdaspur. In C. A. No. 11/19 of 1991 by order dated 21/03/1991, the District Judge held that once the Sub-Registrar had registered the document, he became functus officio and, therefore, he has not power to make a reference to the Collector for collecting the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. When this was questioned, as stated earlier, the HIgh Court rejected the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) THE facts would lie in short compass. The sale deed No. 3033 was executed in favour of the respondents for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000. 00 in respect of the building situated in Gurdaspur. Since it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, no stamp duty was affixed on the sale deed. Equally, no registration charges were paid. When it was pointed out by the auditing authority, the Sub-Registrar had made a reference to the District Collector for collection of the stamp duty of Rs. 32,350. 00 and also registration fee of Rs. 1,000. 00. On receipt of the reference, the Collector issued notice to the respondent who filed his objection on 9/10/1989 contending that since the document was registered two years prior to the issuance of the notice, the Collector ceased to have an power to take action calling upon the respondents to pay the stamp duty and the registration fee. As stated earlier, the Collector had rejected the contention and consequential orders were passed by the Additional District Judge and thereafter revision in the High Court ended in favour of the respondents.

( 4 ) THE only question canvassed in this case is whether limitation of two years prescribed in sub-sec. (3) of S. 47a of the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1982, Act 20 of the 1982) (for short the Act) stands attracted. Section 47-A reads thus :

"47-A (1) : Instrument undervalued how to be dealt with - If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908), while registering any instrument relating to the transfer of any property has reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registered such instrument, prefer the case to the Collector, for determination of the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be and the proper duty payable thereon.

(2) On receipt of reference under sub-sec. (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

(3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a district, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908) in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situate, shall, within two years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-sec. (1) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has to believe that the value of consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in acc