G.S.SINGHVI, J.

1. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the action of the Sub-Registrar, Nilokheri (respondent No. 3) to impugned the sale deeds of the petitioners and to make reference under Sec. 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as inserted by Haryana Act No. 37 of 1973) (for short, the 1899 Act).

2. The facts relevant to the determination of the issues raised in these cases are that petitioners-Mulakh Raj and Deepak Kumar purchased four different parcels of land situated in village Nilokheri from different parties. The particulars of these purchases are as under :

Petitioner Area Price 1. Mulakh Raj 13 Kanals 4 MarlasR.3,30,000/-2 Deepak Kumar12 KanalsR.3,00,000/- 3 Deepak Kumar04 KanalsR.1,00,000/- 4 Deepak Kumar04 Kanals 18 MarlasR.1,22,500/-

3. The sale deeds presented by the petitioners were registered by respondent No. 3 but, at the same time, he impounded the documents and made reference to the Collector, Karnal (respondent No. 2) under Sec. 47-A(1) of the 1899 Act for determination of the correct value of the property on the premise that the prevailing rate of the land in the area was more than the value stipulated in the sale deeds.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impounding of sale deed and the orders of reference on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice and arbitrariness. They have averred that before making reference to respondent No. 2 for determination of the correct value of the property-, respondent No. 3 did not give them notice and opportunity of hearing. They have further averred that instead of independently examining the issue relating to the valuation of the land, respondent No. 3 has mechanically adopted the price fixed by respondent No. 2 and the latter does not have the power to issue instructions or guide-lines for determination of the market value of the land.

5. The respondents have contested the prayer made by the petitioners by stating that the value of the land mentioned in the sale deeds is far below the market rate prevailing in the area. They have averred that respondent No. 3 had impounded the sale deeds and made reference to respondent No. 2 after making a detailed enquiry about the correct price of the land in the area. According to them, the scheme of Sec. 47A of the 1899 Act does not contemplate hearing at the stage of reference and, therefore, the action taken by respondent No. 3 cannot be nullified on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. The respondents have also objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the premises that the issue relating to correct determination of the value is pending before respondent No. 2 and the petitioners can produce evidence to prove that the value mentioned in the sale deeds is the real market value of the land.

6. Shri Ashish Aggarwal relied on the decision of this Court in Chamkaur Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 249 : (AIR 1991 P&H 26) and of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Mahabir Singh etc., 1996 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 588 : (AIR 1996 SC 2994) and argued that the action taken by respondent No. 3 to impound the documents and to make reference under Sec. 47-A(1) of the 1899 Act should be declared void because before doing that, he did not comply with the rule ofaudi alteram partem. Learned counsel submitted that while exercising power under Sec. 47-A(1), the Registering Officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and, therefore, he is under an obligation to comply with the basic rule of natural justice. Shri Aggarwal further argued that the orders of reference should be declared arbitrary and quashed because while doubting the correctness of the value of the properties mentioned in the sale deeds, respondent No. 3 has depended solely on the guide-lines issued by respondent No. 2 and thereby abdicated his discretion.

7. The learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the decision of Chamkuar Singhs case (supra) cannot be made basis for granting r