A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) This group of petitions raising identical issues are being disposed of by a common judgment. The simple point urged in support of the petition is whether the Collector while purporting to act under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A inserted in the Stamp Act, 1899 by State legislature has power to impose penalty on the ground that the Stamp Duty paid on the instrument in question was insufficient i.e. instrument is under-valued. So far as this quetion is concerned, the same must be answered in favour of the petitioners in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act as applicable in this State. Sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act provides : "The Collector may, sue motu, or on a reference from any court or from the Chief Inspector of Stamps, Uttar Pradesh, or any officer of the Stamp Department of the Board of Revenue, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift settlement, award or trust, not already referred to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market-value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (3). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty."
(2.) Under this provision, the Collector has been authorised either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Chief Inspector of Stamps or any officer of the Stamp Department of the Board of Revenue, within four years from the date of registration of the instrument of conveyance etc. to call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value for the property as reflected in that instrument, and if it does not, to determine the market value of such property. If the Collector upon such examination finds that the duty payable thereon in accordance with procedure provided for under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A, is more than the duty paid by the petitioners and he has reason to believe that the instrument does not reflect the market value of the property conveyed there under, truly and correctly, he may himself determine the market value and, thereafter the difference of the duty payable by the parties can be realised from them.
(3.) In the present case, it appears that in the purported exercise of powers, the Additional District Magistrate, Finance came to the conclusion that the instruments in question did not truly and correctly set forth the market value of property and consequently directed the petitioners not only to pay the differences but a penalty on each of the petitioners of varying amounts.;