Chandigarh, May 12 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has dismissed a bunch of pleas wherein petitioners had challenged UT's decision to not register their properties at old collector rates. On April 1, the UT modified collector rates after a period of four years. The hike effected is up to 125% for various property categories. The collector rate is the minimum property value below which a property cannot be registered with the government. Also, the stamp duty is calculated based on the collector rate. A dozen odd pleas sought directions to the UT to accept the application(s) for registration of conveyance deed(s) as per the old collector rates. After the notification came on March 25, the petitioners made attempts to secure online appointments for registration of conveyance deeds, however, they discovered that the online portal was closed. It was submitted that the administration ought to have deployed an alternative mechanism for people to get their deeds registered offline. According to the petitioners, despite numerous requests, no tangible solution was provided by the administration so they could not get their conveyance deeds registered on the basis of stamp duty as per the collector rates prevailing till March 31. The court said the collector rates act only as guidelines and serve as a prima facie material available before the registering officer to alert him regarding the value of property. The registrar/sub-registrar is required to perform "quasi-judicial function" and apply his independent mind at the time of presentation of document/conveyance deed for registration, as to whether the same is stamped in accordance with the rules, the court stated. It added that since the function of registrar/sub-registrar is held to be a "quasi-judicial function", the court cannot pre-empt and pass the directions upon the registering authority to register the conveyance deeds either on the basis of collector rates, which remained in force till March 31 or on the basis of collector rates, which came into effect on April 1. "This court cannot adjudicate the quasi-judicial discretion of the registering authority. Therefore, the instant petitions are a premature," the court said while dismissing the pleas and asking the petitioners that at the first instance they are required to appear before the sub-registrar, who would take a decision taking into account all facts and circumstances....