1. A very important question of law having general importance falls for consideration in this writ application and with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties who have been heard at length the writ application is disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The question falls for consideration is "whether authorities exercising power u/S. 47-A of the Stamp Act (as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1988) read with Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules, 1995, can refuse to register an instrument duly presented for registration in execution of a decree of specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of undervaluation of the property which is the subject matter of the decree.

3. Before answering the question it would be useful to briefly state the facts of the instant case which lie in a narrow compass.

4. In 1978 one Smt. Pratibha Singh and her husband, Madhusudan Singh jointly proposed to sell their land measuring an area of 8 kathas at a price of Rs. 6500.00 per katha. Pursuant to the said offer an agreement was executed by them in favour of the petitioners on 30-11-78 and out of the total consideration a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 was paid as an advance. Accordingly, application seeking permission for transfer of the land was filed being permission case No. 827/78 and permission was accorded vide order dated 28-8-79. The petitioners accordingly said to have purchased the required stamp papers and requested the vendors to sell the land. It appears that when the vendor refused to execute sale deed a dispute arose between the petitioners and the vendors which resulted in filing of Title Suit No. 125/81 by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge, Ranchi vide judgment and decree dated 18-10-82 with a direction to the defendants i.e. the respondents-vendors to execute sale deed within two months from the date of the judgment. In the decree the valuation of the land was shown at Rupees 52,000.00 . The petitioner, thereafter, filed Execution Case No. 1/83(A) and prayed to the Execution Court to allow them to deposit the decretal amount. In the meantime, the vendors challenged the judgment and decree by filing First Appeal No. 27/83R before this Court. In the said appeal the execution of the decree was, however, stayed by this Court. The said appeal was ultimately dismissed on 4-4-90. The vendors then filed L.P.A. No. 47/90(R) which too was dismissed on 17-10-90. The vendors then filed S.L.P. No. 5061/90 before the Supreme Court which was accepted for hearing and was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 3151/92. The said Civil Appeal was also ultimately dismissed on 23-11-95. The defendants/vendors then filed Civil Review No. 63/96 before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 7-2-96 and the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge was confirmed. After disposal of the civil review by the Supreme Court, the Executing Court again proceeded with the execution of the decree and directed the petitioners vide order dated 15-2-96 to deposit the balance amount which was deposited on 23-3-96. The decree, however, could not be executed due to several objections filed by the vendors. When the vendors-judgment-debtors failed to execute and register the sale deed in terms of the decree, the Executing Court executed the sale deed on 23-12-98 and authorised the office clerk to present the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar for acceptance of its execution and registration. The sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar who, after admitting the same, issued receipt to the officer clerk. The said Sub-Registrar however, referred the matter to the Dist. Registrar i.e. respondent No. 2 under Sec. 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act, 1899 for fixation of proper valuation and the stamp duty payable thereon. It is stated that since then this matter is pending before the respondent No. 2.

5.