Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.4.2019, passed by the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Patna Division, Patna (Respondent No. 2) in Case No. 404 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 14,99,930/- along with a fine of Rs. 1,49,993/-. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the Appellate order dated 22.1.2021, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Patna, in Stamp Appeal Case No. 143 of 2019.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a land, appertaining to Thana No. 40, Tauzi No. 5127, Thana Code No. 092, Khata No. 250, Survey Plot No. 425(Part), situated at Bhusaula Danapur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District-Patna, vide a sale deed dated 7.9.2017, which was registered on the same day i.e. 7.9.2017. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar had found that the stamp duty had been paid by treating the land in question to be that of residential category, instead of commercial category, since upon enquiry it had transpired that the land in question is situated on the main road, hence, he had referred the matter to the Respondent No. 2 for calculating the deficit stamp duty purportedly under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, whereafter the Respondent No. 2 had issued notice to the petitioner and had registered a case bearing Stamp Case No. 404 of 2017 and ultimately, had passed the impugned order dated 22.4.2019, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp fee along with fine to the tune of Rs. 16,49,923/- (after deducting the amount already paid earlier).

3. 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. 3 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 2 after registration of the sale deed on 7.9.2017, 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.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the land in question falls under the commercial category, the Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 22.4.2019, has rightly calculated the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 14, 99, 930/-, hence, there is no illegality in the said order dated 22.4.2019. It is also submitted that the appellate order dated 22.1.2021 also does not suffer from any infirmity.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 47A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [as amended by the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013, published in the gazette on 03.05.2013], herein below: –

" (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 Minimum Value prepared under the rules framed under the provision of this Act, he shall refer