MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2017, passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty along with fine totalling to a sum of Rs. 59,224/- in connection with registration of a sale deed, which had taken place on 10.10.2007. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice issued by the Respondent No. 5 dated 23.5.2017 whereby and whereunder a demand for the aforesaid deficit stamp duty along with validation fees etc. totalling to a sum of Rs. 72,714/- has been raised.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.10.2007, the petitioner had purchased a land, appertaining to Khata No. 536/1222, Khesra No. 2130 area, 36.5 decimal, nature of land agricultural, from one Kedar Prasad, through a registered sale deed no. 15351 dated 10.10.2007, after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- for which, the requisite stamp duty of Rs. 21,160/- was also paid, as per the prevailing rate of stamp duty in the year 2007 and the said sale deed was registered, whereafter, the same was handed over to the petitioner by the respondent no. 5.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that after seven years of registration of the sale deed in question, purportedly upon a private complaint made in the year, 2014, the Respondent No. 5 had initiated an enquiry with regard to the category of the land as to whether the same is agricultural or residential and after conclusion of the said enquiry, he had come to the conclusion that the land in question is not an agricultural land, but a residential land, hence, had valued the said land at Rs. 9,37,500/-, as per the MVR and the requisite stamp duty to be paid, was calculated as Rs. 75,000/-, whereafter he had referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3 under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on 21.1.2015. The Respondent No. 3 had then initiated a case bearing Case No. 266/2014-2015 and on 18.1.2016, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared before the Respondent No. 3 and filed his objection, nonetheless, the Respondent No. 3 had passed the impugned order dated 27.4.2017, upholding the reference made by the Respondent No. 5 and had issued a direction to the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 59,224/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reference can be made by the Registering authority, for determination of the proper market value of the property in question, if he is satisfied that the classification of the property or the measurement of the structure contained in the property is wrong or the market value of the property has been set forth at a lower rate than the Guideline register of Estimated Minimum Value, only before registering the instrument in question, however in the present case, the respondent no. 5 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 3 not only after registration of the sale deed on 27.07.2007 but after more than 07 years on 21.01.2015, hence the said reference itself is bad in law. It is also submitted by referring to Section 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899 that the higher authority of the registration department can also suo motu call for and examine the instrument in question for the purposes of satisfying itself regarding the correctness of the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon, within a period of two years from the date of registration, however in the present case, the said period has also stood expired, hence the respondents could not have enhanced the stamp duty duly paid by the petitioner at the time of registration of the sale deed on 27.07.2007. In this connection, it would be apt to refer to Section 47(A)(1) and (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 hereinbelow:—