( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act made by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh being the chief controlling revenue authority.

( 2 ) THIS reference has been made under very peculiar circumstances. The proceedings started in Case No. 18-B/103 of 1975-76 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Collector Stamps), Bematara on a report of the Sub-Registrar dated 2612-1975. The Sub-Registrar reported that the petitioner Mahant Ishwari Sharan Deo had undervalued a gift-deed executed in favour of Nimbark Sanskrit Vidyalaya Samiti. The deficit was estimated at Rs. 17,100/- and receiving this report, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 14-5-1976 accepting the report of the Registrar and directing fee party to be summoned and ultimately, on 26-10-1976 in the presence of the person who had submit-ed the document for registration, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the payment of the amount by instalments of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

( 3 ) AGAINST this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer a revision was preferred to the Board of Revenue which after hearing the arguments observed that ordinarily orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer would have been set aside as it is not clear under what provisions of law the Sub-Divisional Officer was acting but it has been observed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that by M. P. Second Amendment Act, 1975, the provisions of Stamp Act have been amended and a new Section 47-A has been inserted and this has come in force from 7-5-1975 and as the gift-deed was registered on 26-121975, this Section 47-A would be applicable. But the learned Member felt that under this section, rules have been framed and the Sub-Divisional Officer has proceeded under Section 47-A but has not fallowed at all the rules and the procedure prescribed under the scheme under Section 47-A itself.

( 4 ) THE learned Member also felt that as the Sub-Divisional Officer did not follow the procedure the aggrieved party could not avail of his right of appeal under Sub-section (4) of Section 47-A and thereby a confusion has been created and a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue under Section 56. The learned Member has also recommended that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has to be quashed as it is in complete disregard of the provisions of the Act and the rules and that the matter has to be remanded so that the Sub-Divisional Officer may follow the procedure prescribed under Section 47-A and dispose of the matter. But the learned Member of the Board felt a difficulty that the Board sitting as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority could not set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 56 (1), and feeling this difficulty, it appears that the learned Member of the Board felt that what the Chief Controlling Authority could not do under Section 56 could be done by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 57 and, therefore, this reference has been made.

( 5 ) THE learned Member of the Board came to this conclusion in view of a decision of this Court reported in Chaturbhujdas v. State of M. P. , 1975 Revenue Nirnaya 453 : (AIR 1975 Madh Pra 209) where it was held that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority exercising jurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 56 is not competent to exercise appellate powers and to this extent, the view taken by the learned Member of the Board appears to be correct. The other decision which has been referred to by the learned Member of the Board i. e. Komalchand v. State, 1965 Revenue Nirnaya 374 pertains to the jurisdiction of the Registrar but in view of amended provisions contained in Section 47-A that decision will have ro application and in view of these amended provisions now the Board has jurisdiction as a second appellate Court. But that jurisdiction could only be exercised if an appeal is preferred to the Board of Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of the