MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.5.2015, passed by the Additional Inspector General of Registration, Patna, i.e. the respondent No. 4 herein, in Case No. 21/2014 whereby and whereunder by an ex parte order, the reference made by the registering authority regarding valuation and deficit stamp duty has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,48,800/- along with fine of Rs. 1,94,880/-. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 04.06.2015, issued by the respondent No. 4, raising a demand of Rs. 21,43,680/-, upon the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the vendors Rajan Tiwari @ Ajay Kumar and others jointly advertised for the sale of their land at Thana no. 155, computer code-036, khata no. 316, khesra survey plot no. 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167 and 1168, area 1 acre and 56 decimals, equal to nearly 50 khatas, situated in Mauza- Govindpur Selhauri, P.S.-Naubatpur, District- Patna, in pursuance to which the petitioner showed interest and the matter was finalized for sale at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per katha and accordingly the vendors jointly received a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in advance as earnest money and executed a deed of Baibeyana (agreement to sell) in favour of petitioner on 10.3.2012. After receiving a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs, the vendors refused to execute and register the Sale deed in favour of the petitioner, leading to filing of a Title Suit no. 119/2012 by the petitioner against the vendors, for specific performance of contract.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently, a joint compromise petition was filed by the vendors and the vendee on 23.10.2013, in the aforesaid Title Suit no. 119/2012, whereafter a sale deed was presented for being registered in favour of the petitioner on 28.10.2013, pertaining to the aforesaid land, admeasuring an area of 1 acre 56 decimal, for a sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs and the description of the nature of property was mentioned therein as agricultural land, alongwith which, the petitioner had paid stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 48,000/-, as per the valuation of the property, whereafter the sale deed in question was also registered by the registering authority on 28.10.2013, as has been categorically stated in paragraph No.1 of the impugned order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the Additional Inspector General of Registration, Patna.

4. The District Sub-Registrar, Bikram is stated to have referred the matter pertaining to registration of the instrument of the property in question, purportedly under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, considering the land in question to be a progressive land and entailing levy of higher registration fees, leading to initiation of a case bearing case no. 21/2014, against the petitioner, by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna, i.e. the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, a notice dated 09.09.2014 was sent to the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No. 4 and pleaded that the land in question is an agricultural land and the valuation fixed by the Sub-Registrar, Bikram is arbitrary, since he has assigned no reason for considering the said land to be a progressive land. However, without following any procedure, as prescribed under the "Bihar (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the "Rules, 1995"), the respondent No. 4 passed an ex parte order dated 29.5.2015, in case no. 21/2014, accepting the reference made by the District Sub-Registrar, Bikram and determined the value of the property to be a sum of Rs. 2,49,60,000/- as also directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,48,800/- along with fine of Rs. 1,94,880/- within 60 days else an interest would be imposed at the rate of 5% per month on the