( 1 ) THE Inspector General of Registration Gujarat State as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has made this Reference purporting to do so under section 54 (1) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 He has also submitted the case to use his own words for instructions of the High Court. The facts leading to the Reference bri- efly stated are as under: A special power of attorney was executed on the 1st day of January 1957 at Kasssla in Sudan by one Jatashanker Shivshanker in favour of Ramjee Samjee Bhatt of Rajkot. Under the power of attorney he authorised Ramjee Samjee Bhatt to sell his immovable property at Rajkot to one Patel Zinabhai Bhavanbhai of Rajkot for Rs. 9 100 and to receive the said amount on his behalf. He further authorised Ramjee Samjee Bhatt to sign and execute the necessary instrument and to apply to the Registrar or any Government Department at Rajkot to register the property in the name of the buyer. This document did not bear any stamp. The document was received by Ramjee Samjee Bhatt at Rajkot. He presented the instrument to the Collector Madhya Saurashtra Rajkot for adjudica- tion. The Collector held that the document was chargeable with stamp duty of Rs. 213 and 75 naye Paise under the provisions of Article 48 (f) the First Schedule to the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 Ramjee Samjee Bhatt paid the amount of the stamp duty and obtained the certificate of the Collector on the instrument under the provisions contained in section 32 of the -aforesaid Act. He acted in exercise of the authority conferred upon him under the power of attorney. He was aggrieved by the decision of the Collector holding that the document was chargeable to duty of Rs. 213 He made an application on 27th July 1959 to the Inspector General of Registration Bombay State being the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for refund of the amount paid by him. In that appli- cation he stated that he had to affix the stamp of Rs. 213-75 as required by the Collector as he had to complete the transaction in the exercise of the power conferred upon him under the power of attorney as soon as possible otherwise he would have been liable in damages for the breach of the agreement for sale. He stated in the application that the power of attorney was a special power of attorney which required the stamp only of Rs. 3. 00. He accordingly applied for refund of the balance. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was of the view that the contention of the applicant was correct and that only a duty of Rs 3/- was leviable in connection with that instrument. The Chief Controlling Revenue Autho- rity however was of the opinion that it could not entertain the application of the applicant under the law. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has thereupon made the present Reference in terms following: As Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is not authorised to entertain such a claim under the law I refer this case for the decision of the High Court as to whether the excess stamp duty recovered can be refunded if so by whom and under what authority or within its powers the High Court may decide the case communicating its decision for implementation. Looking at the power of attorney we are clearly of the view that the power of attorney is required to be stamped with a stamp of only Rs. 3. 00 under the provisions of Article 48 (c) of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act. Article 48 (f) is only applicable in those cases where the power of attorney is given for consideration and authorises the attorney to sell any immoveable property. In that event the stamp duty is the same as is leviable on a conveyance under clause (a) of article 25 for the amount of the consideration. In the present case the power of attorney has not been given for any consideration. It provides for the sale of the property to a third party for the consideration of Rs. 9 100 payable by the third party and for the receipt of the said amount from the third party by the holder of the power of attorn