Honble Prakash Krishna, J.—By means of a registered sale deed registered on 21.3.1992 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar, the petitioner purchased a double-story shop measuring 58 square meter situate in Mohalla Dhimanpura, M.S.K. Road Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar from one Manohar Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and paid the stamp duty thereon as per the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate. The Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Kairana District Muzaffarnagar on 25.3.1992 sent a report to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) that the valuation of the property has not been correctly disclosed in the sale-deed. According to him the market value of the property is Rs. 3,60,000/- instead of Rs. 1,70,000/- on which a sum of Rs. 62,200/- was payable as stamp duty. In other words according to him there was a deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 27,550/-. Proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act was initiated by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) on the basis of the said report. He also called for a report regarding the market value of the property in question from the Tahsildar who reported that the market value of the land is around Rs. 1,40,400/- and the cost of the construction standing there on is approximately Rs. 40,000/-. Thus the total value of the property sold as per his report was Rs. 1,80,400/- while it was shown as Rs. 1,70,000/- in the instrument i.e. the sale deed.

2. The petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, appeared before that ADM (F&R) and contended that the sale consideration in the instrument has been properly and correctly set out. The stamp duty has been paid as per the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate. He further submitted that the exemplar referred to in the report of the Sub-Registrar are not applicable to the facts of the present case as properties mentioned there in are differently situated.

3. The ADM (F&R) by the order dated 29.11.1995 rejected the report of the Tahsildar as well as the case of the petitioner and presumed that at the time of the transfer, the monthly rent of the property in question could not have been less than Rs. 1,200/- and by multiplying in by 300/- as provided for under Rule 341 of Indian Stamp Rule, it estimated the valuation at Rs. 3,60,000/-. This order was challenged by way of revision No. 4 of 1995-1996 before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act. The revison having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.11.1998, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders.

4. Heard and considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Section 47-A of the Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below :

47-A Undervaluation of instrument—(1)(a) If the market value of any property, which is the subject o any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on market value of the property as set forth in such instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act immediately after presentation of such instrument, and the before accepting it for registration and taking any action under Section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under Section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as computed on the basis of the minimum value determined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the instrument is presented again for registration, the registering officer shall certify the endorsement thereon, that the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof and th