MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.01.2016, passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case no. 265 of 2014-15, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3, by an ex-parte order, has directed the petitioner to deposit additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 24,882/- in connection with registration of sale deed dated 27.07.2007.

2. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 14.03.2016, issued by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the District Sub Registrar, Bettiah, West Champaran, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to not only deposit the aforesaid additional stamp duty and fine but has also been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5700/- for validation of the sale deed as well as a sum of Rs. 475.00 for SALAMI TALBANA.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2007, the petitioner purchased the land appertaining to Khata no. 262/1218, Khesra no. 2137, area 13.25 decimal, nature of land agricultural, situated in village-Tikuliya, P.S. Chanpatiya, from one Kedar Prasad after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 47,000/- for which stamp duty of Rs. 3,940/- was paid, as per the prevailing rate in the year 2007, whereafter, the said sale deed was registered and handed over to the petitioner by the respondent no. 5. The petitioner had then got the mutation done with regard to the aforesaid land in question and since then, he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is the further case of the petitioner that suddenly, after 07 years of the date of registration of the aforesaid sale deed, the respondent no. 5 started an inquiry with regard to the nature of the land in question, as to whether the same is agricultural or residential in nature, whereafter he came to a finding that the land in question is a residential land valued at Rs. 3,32,000/-, for which, as per MVR, stamp duty of Rs. 22,620/- was required to be paid, hence the respondent no. 5 sent the inquiry report, to the said effect, to the respondent no. 3 for passing appropriate orders and realizing the deficit stamp duty. After receipt of the said inquiry report, the respondent no. 3 initiated a case bearing Case no. 265 of 2014-15 and allegedly, issued notices to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.01.2016 under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1899”), which was never served upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that after 11 days of issuance of the said notice dated 18.01.2016, the respondent no. 3 passed an ex-parte order dated 30.01.2016, directing the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 22,620/- and a fine of Rs. 2,262/- within 60 days, failing which the same was directed to be realized with interest @ 5% per annum.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the petitioner was issued notice by the respondent no. 5, before holding inquiry with regard to the nature of the land in question nor any notices have ever been served upon the petitioner pertaining to the aforesaid case no. 265 of 2014-15 and an ex-parte order dated 30.01.2016 has been passed by the respondent no. 3 in haste i.e. just after 11 days of the alleged issuance of notice dated 18.01.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 47(A)-(1) and (3) of Act, 1899, which is reproduced hereinbelow :—

“47-A (1) Where the registering officers appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement is satisfied that the classification of the property and/ or the measurement of the structure contained in the property which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth wrongly or the market value of the property, which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth at a lower rate than the Guideline Register of Estimated Minimu