1. As State has appeared and filed counter affidavit and produced original records relating to the case in question, with the consent of parties, this writ application was heard at length and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are briefly stated as hereunder:-

3. One Smt. Pramila Upadhya executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of a plot of land at Kalyani Colony, Saket Vihar, Anisabad, DistrictPatna. This was presented for registration before the respondent District Sub-Registrar, Patna for registration on or about 2.2.1998. This deed was scribed on a stamp paper of Rs. 5,000/-. Apparently, the District Sub-Registrar being of the opinion that the correct stamp duty payable was Rs. 19,530/- and, as such, there was a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 14,530/-. He, accordingly, impounded the instrument and forwarded the same to the Deputy Collector (Stamp, Incharge, Legal Section, Patna Collectorate vide his Memo No. 396 dated 5.2.1998 with a request to order for recovery of the deficit stamp duty in terms of Section 38(ii) of the said Act. The Deputy Collector (Stamp) then issued a notice to the petitione