Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Patna Division, Patna i.e the respondent No. 4, in Case no. 05 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty along with fine totaling to a sum of Rs. 1,07,272/-, in connection with registration of a sale deed, which had taken place on 25.05.2015. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice dated 28.01.2022, issued by the Certificate Officer, Rohtas in Case no. 01 of 2018-19.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner and his brother had negotiated to purchase 03 kathas of agricultural land situated at Plot no. 1153, Khata no. 1092, Mauza-Nokha, Thana no. 441, Nagar Panchayat Nokha from its owner for a sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, whereafter a sale deed was prepared and presented before the District Sub Registrar, Sasaram, Rohtas i.e. the respondent no. 7 and after paying the stamp duty, the same was registered on 25.05.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land purchased by the petitioner is an agricultural land situated at a distance of about 20 km from the District Headquarters and is not bounded by any road, nonetheless, on false pretext, the aforesaid Stamp case no. 05 of 2015 was instituted and a notice dated 05.03.2016 was sent to the petitioner for appearing in the matter, whereafter he had appeared and submitted copies of sale deed pertaining to similar properties, wherein the valuation of the land was similar to that of the land of the petitioner, however, subsequently, the petitioner received a notice from the Certificate Officer, Rohtas in connection with Certificate case no. 01 of 2018-19 and upon inquiry, he came to know that an order dated 31.03.2016 has been passed by the respondent no. 4 in Stamp case no. 05 of 2015, directing the petitioner to deposit deficit stamp duty along with fine totaling to a sum of Rs. 1,07,272/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the mandate of Section 47A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the 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 reference has been made by the respondent no. 7, only after registration of the sale deed on 25.05.2015, 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 Begum vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 293.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that the order passed by the respondent no. 4 in Stamp Case no. 05 of 2015 is legal, valid and has been passed as per the provisions contained in the Act, 1899. It is also submitted that the then District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas had authorized an Assistant of his office with regard to enquiring about the status of the land in question, who had then visited the land in question and submitted his inquiry report depicting the said land to be a fully developed one, whereafter reference was made to the respondent no. 4, who had then initiated Stamp case no. 05 of 2015 and then the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty along with fine totaling to a sum of Rs. 1,07,272/-, hence, there is no lapse in the proced