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. 22/2014 whereby and where-under 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. 10,15,040/- along with a fine of Rs. 1,01,504/-. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the letter dated 04.06.2015, issued by the respondent No. 4, raising a demand of a sum of Rs. 11,16,544/-, upon the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is stated to have purchased a land appertaining to Thana no. 155, Computer Code-036, Khata No. 118, Khesra survey plot No. 1132, 1134, 1135, and Khata No. 70, Khesra survey plot No. 1136, 1137, 1138, 1142 area 26 katha equal to 81.25 Decimals, situated at Mauza- Govindpur Selhauri, Pargana- Baliya, P.S. Naubatpur, Dist.- Patna and with regard to the same, the vendor had jointly received the consideration amount and executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 27.01.2014.

3. 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. 22/2014, against the petitioner, by the Additional Inspector General, Registration, Patna, i.e. the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 came to be passed by the Respondent No. 4.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 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, which is in fact agricultural land. It is also submitted that the procedure prescribed under the "Bihar (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1995") has also not been followed by the respondent No. 4 while passing the impugned order dated 29.5.2015, in case no. 22/2014, accepting the reference made by the District Sub-Registrar, Bikram and determining the value of the property to be a sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the mandate of Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, 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. 4 after registration of the sale deed on 27.01.2014, hence the said reference itself is bad in law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2018(2) PLJR 293.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the land in question falls under the category of progressive developing land, hence, the Additional Inspector General, Registration Patna, vide order dated 29.05.2015, has rightly calculated the deficit stamp duty to be a sum of Rs. 10,15,040/-, thus, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the said order dated 29.05.2015. As far as the issue raised by the petitioner to the effect that no reference can be made after registration of the sale deed, the learned counsel for the Respondent State ha