HEMANT GUPTA, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order dated 9th August, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11978 of 2007, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order directing the respondent herein, to deposit a sum of Rs.15,860/- as the deficient stamp duty and the fine of five times of the above amount imposed upon her, was set aside.

The respondent-applicant is the beneficiary of partition deed registered on 29th March, 2003 from one Mst. Ganga Kumar. After registration of the document, it was on 16.03.2007 the applicant received a show cause notice from the Collector regarding initiation of proceeding under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The notice was to the effect that District Sub Registrar has pointed out that deficiency of Rs.15,860/- of stamp duty in deed in question. It is also averred in the writ petition that in fact the Commissioner, respondent no. 2, vide order dated 22nd September, 2006 directed the Collector to initiate a proceeding under Section 47A of the Act.

The appellant contested the show cause notice by filing a reply but an order was passed by the Collector on 14th May, 2007 holding that there is deficient stamp duty of Rs.15,860/- and imposed penalty as five times of the deficient amount. It is the said order which was challenged by the applicant before the learned single Bench. The order has been set aside on the ground that the notice was issued after four years of registration of document, whereas in terms of Section 47A(3) of the Act the Collector can issue notice within two years only.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is no period of limitation prescribed for issuing notice by the Sub Registrar. Therefore, the finding recorded that the service of notice is barred by limitation is not correct. Reference is made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakant C. Adesara vs. State of Bihar [1997 (2) PLJR 16]. The Division Bench has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Mahajan Sabha, Gurdaspur [AIR 1996 SC 2153].

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the notice was issued by the Collector. Therefore, the Collector in exercise of his jurisdiction ought to have issued the notice within two years of registration of the document, whereas the notice was issued after four years. It is contended that the notice was issued by the Collector may be on the recommendation of the Sub Registrar or of the Commissioner, the Collector has jurisdiction to issue notice within two years of registration of the document. Reference was made to Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995, wherein Rule-10(1) prescribes that if the value set forth in the instrument is according to the estimated minimum value indicated in the guidelines register supplied by the District Sub-Registrar but the registering officer has reason to believe that the market value is higher than the estimated minimum value he shall refer such instruments to the collector “at the time of admission” after recording his reasons in writing for fixation of appropriate market value as per procedure laid down in Rules 10 and 12. It is thus contended that the reference can be made by Sub-Registrar only at the time of registration of the document and not thereafter. Section 47A of the Act as discussed in the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the appellants has undergone substantial change in the year 2008 by virtue of Bihar Finance Act, 2008. However, such amendments are not relevant as the document was registered prior to the amendment. Even the show cause notice was issued prior to amendment. The un-amended provisions read as under:-

“47A. Instrument of conveyance.- (1) Where the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveya