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 petitioner and the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. Accordingly, by order dated 8.7.1998, the Deputy Collector (Stamp) in the case so registered being Compounding Case No. 134 of 1997-1998 ordered for payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 14,530/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 600/-. On 15.7.1998, the petitioner deposited the entire amount as ordered including the penalty of Rs. 600/- as levied. It appears that the matter was then brought to the notice of the Collector of the district who, by his handwritten order dated 20.8.1998 in one line, held that for having paid less stamp duty, maximum penalty should be imposed and realised. Thereafter, the Collector of the district passed an order noticing that earlier the deficit stamp duty alongwith penalty of Rs. 600/- was imposed and paid but on review of records, it appeared that the maximum imposeble penalty was Rs. 1,45,300/- as against which only Rs. 600/- was imposed as penalty. He, accordingly, reviewed the order on 16.9.1998 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,45,300/- and asked the petitioner to deposit the same. The petitioner challenged this order of the Collector of the district before this Court on various grounds by filing CWJC No. 4736 of 2002 which was disposed of by order dated 9.5.2002. This Court noticed various submissions made by the petitioner and held that on a short issue of violation of principles of natural justice, the order of the Collector of the district could not be sustained, as before reviewing the order of the Deputy Collector (Stamp), the Collector of the district had not granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court also noted that even though Sec. 40 of the Act provided for a maximum penalty of ten times the deficit stamp duty but it also provided minimum of Rs. 5/- which should be kept in mind also.

4. The matter thus having been remanded, the impugned order was passed in the said Compounding Case on 2.11.2002 by the Collector of the district. By the said order, he has noticed the facts aforesaid and rejecting the plea of the petitioner of a bona fide mistake induced by the deed-writer, he held that the petitioner is inflicting revenue loss to the Government and more importantly he held that under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, Deputy Collector (Stamp) had no jurisdiction to impose fine. Therefore, the order of Deputy Collector (Stamp) was a nullity. He, thus, imposed a penalty of seven times, the deficit stamp duty which now amounts to Rs. 1,01,110/- which the petitioner has been asked to deposit. This is the order which has brought the petitioner to this Court.

5. It would thus be seen that a penalty of Rs. 600/- as originally imposed, was enhanced to Rs. 1,45,300/- and then reduced to Rs. 1,01,110/-.

6. The petitioner submits that once the instru