1. Under challenge in this petition is Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam in CMA No.70 of 2008 filed by the respondent against the order of the second petitioner directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,04,650/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs.16,746/- as registration fees.

2. The respondent purchased 1.69 percent undivided interest in 19.36Aresof property in Muttambalam Village with right to construct an apartment having a super built up area of 113.87 sq. metres along with one covered parking area. The value set forth in the instrument is Rs.1,61,645/-.For determination of deficit stamp duty, reference under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was made by the third petitioner to the second petitioner. On objection being taken to the sufficiency of stamp duty and registration fee, the second petitioner held that the value of the property covered by the instrument is Rs.10 lakhs and directed the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fee as above.

3. The respondent filed Ext.P1 appeal before the District Court, Kottayam under Sub Section 4 of Section 45B of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal along with other appeals, set aside the final order passed by the second petitioner by the impugned order.

4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader was that the second petitioner had acted only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and only within the purview of the statutory powers conferred on him. It was also contended that the court below had substantially interfered with the policy decision of the State Government and if the same is allowed to be implemented, it will adversely affect the revenue of the Government.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, argued that neither the second petitioner who referred the matter under Section 45B nor the second petitioner who found that the property covered by the instrument was undervalued had reason to believe that the value of the property has not been duly set forth in the instrument. The document itself as it stands has to be looked into and not any collateral facts or circumstances for determining whether a document is undervalued or not; it was so submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was further argued that the authorities have not taken into account the various criteria laid down in Rule 5 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 in fixing the value of the property.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Himalaya House Company Ltd. v Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & another (AIR 1972 S.C. 899) where the provisions of the Central Stamp Act were considered. In that case, the Apex Court referring to a series of decisions took the view that in order to see whether a document had been sufficiently stamped, the document itself has to be looked into and not any collateral facts or circumstances.

8. However the learned Government Pleader submitted that in the Central Act which was considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, there was no provision which empowered the revenue to make an independent enquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable and that was the reason why the Apex Court has rendered such a verdict. On the other hand the Kerala Stamp Act empowers the District Collector to hold an independent enquiry and to determine the value or the consideration as well as the duty payable; it was argued by the learned Government Pleader. A view similar to the one taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Trivandrum v Ittiyavira John and another (1975 KLT 486) where Article 21 of the Kerala