Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—A short but an intricate question is involved in this writ petition.

2. The question is as to whether the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act are empowered to determine the market value of the land under transfer when the same has been sold by public auction or by inviting tenders under the supervision of the Court at a value approved by the Court.

3. The facts leading to the above question may be summarised as under :

4. M/s. Bharat Berg Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act was ordered to be wound up by the order of the Bombay High Court dated 21.12.1999 passed in Company Petition No. 514 of 1998. The Official Liquidator stepped in and took possession of all assets of the company in liquidation which included the property in question i.e. the land situate in village Okhara, Tehsil Bindki, Malwa, district Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh. He was granted permission to sell the above land by the Court on 3rd August, 2000. Accordingly, sale notices were published in the news-papers and the offer of M/s. Sanjug Trading Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 37,51,000/- was accepted/confirmed by the Court on 26.4.2002. Subsequently, the Court vide order dated 17.12.2003 permitted the sale deed to be executed in favour of petitioner M/s. Saya Traders, as a nominee of M/s. Sanjug Trading Company Ltd. The Official Liquidator on 30.4.2004 executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs. 37,51,000/- and presented the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 19.4.2004 but the document was returned without registering. The deed was again presented for registration on 28.5.2004 after removing the objections.

5. The Sub-Registrar on 28.5.2004 submitted a report stating that the conveyance deed showing the value of the land to be Rs. 37,51,000/- has been presented on which stamp duty at the minimum rate as prescribed by the District Magistrate has to be paid and accordingly suggested value of the land as Rs. 11,57,18,763/- for realising stamp duty.

6. The Collector vide impugned order dated 29.3.2010 accepted the report of the Sub-Registrar. The market value of the property has been taken as Rs. 11,59,48,763/- on which deficiency in stamp duty of Rs. 89,79,900/- has been determined and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed. The deficiency has been directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month.

7. The above order passed by the Collector has directly been assailed by means of the present writ petition without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal/revision provided under Section 56 of the Act on the allegation that the order is without jurisdiction; Section 47-A of the Act is not applicable in the present case; the order is arbitrary and imposes unforeseen financial liability and the remedy of appeal which provides for depositing 1/3rd of the amount and furnishing security for the balance for grant of interim protection would not be an efficacious remedy on account of the onerous condition aforesaid.

8. Initially learned Standing Counsel made an attempt to oppose the petition on the ground of alternative remedy but in view of the pure legal question arising which do not involve any factual dispute, he agreed for the disposal of the writ petition on merits after exchange of necessary affidavits at the admission stage.

9. Now pleadings of the parties are complete and they agree for final disposal of the writ petition on merits irrespective of the alternative remedy available.

10. The Court has also overlooked the alternative remedy so available as prima facie the contention is that the sale was made under the supervision of the Court at a price fixed by it and the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act would not be applicable as allowing determination of market value under the Act in effect would be allowing the authorities to sit over the decision of the High Court.

11. Apart from