Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri M.L. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

3. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 10.2.1998 and 8.5.2002 passed in proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899).

4. The petitioner purchased the property in dispute through a registered sale-deed dated 22.7.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/- on which stamp duty of Rs. 3,19,000/- was paid. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings under the Act, 1899 were initiated. The petitioner filed his objections. The Stamp Authority by his order dated 10.2.1998 has calculated the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 91,785/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Stamp Authority dated 10.2.1998 the petitioner filed Revision No. 831 of 1998-99 which has also been rejected by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by his order dated 8.5.2002.

5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub-Registrar made a reference of deficiency of stamp duty in exercise of powers under Section 47-A (4) of the Act, 1899 even though Section 47-A (4) does not contemplate any such provision, therefore, the entire proceedings are null and void and bad in law. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the construction of the house property was very old which has not been considered by the Stamp Authority. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the market value has not been correctly applied.

6. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same must necessarily be rejected because proceedings can be initiated at the behest of anybody who brings to the notice of the Collector about deficiency of stamp duty as stated in sub-section 3 of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899. Mere quoting of a wrong provisions of law will not render the proceedings null and void if exercise of power and the proceedings initiated are otherwise in accordance with law. The law in this regard is well-settled in the case of P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India and others, AIR 1958 SC 232. Para 10 of the judgment reads as extracted hereunder:

“10. It is argued that when an authority passes an order which is within its competence, it cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong provision if it can be shown to be within its powers under any other rule, and that the validity of an order should be judged on a consideration of its substance and not its form. .....................”

7. In H.L.Mehra v. Union of India and others, (1974) 4 SCC 396, the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 has followed its earlier judgment in P. Balakotaiah (supra).

8. In Union of India v. Khazan Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 583, the Supreme Court in para 6 has held as under:

“6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 25(1)(e) read with Rule 25(1)(f) of the rules gives very wide powers to the Appellate Authority. It has the power to remit the case to the disciplinary authority for further inquiry and pass such other orders as it may consider proper or deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The Appellate Authority did not mention in its order as to under which Sub-rule of Rule 25(1) the appeal was being disposed of. The tribunal while noticing Rule 25(1)(e) of the rules and conceding that the Appellate Authority could remand the case to the disciplinary authority for further inquiry under the said sub-rule, grossly erred in setting aside the order on the concession of the learned Counsel to the effect that the Appellate Authority had passed the order under Rule 25(1)(d) of the Rules. It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order cannot in