Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2016, passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur i.e. the respondent no. 4 in Case no. 129 of 2013-14, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 93,360/- along with fine of Rs. 9,336/-. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 06.09.2016, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur i.e. the respondent no. 2 in Stamp Appeal no. 169 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner purchased a plot of land belonging to one Urmila Devi appertaining to Khata no. 127, Khesra no. 2023 admeasuring 15 decimal, situated at village- Bhitaha, PS-Bairia, District- West Champaran for a sum of Rs. 3,03,000/-, whereafter, the sale deed was executed by the vendor and the same was registered on 06.12.2013, after depositing a sum of Rs. 24,440/- as stamp duty and a sum of Rs. 6,785/- under the head of registration fee and other charges. Subsequently, the District Sub-Registrar, Bettiah i.e. the respondent no. 5 had referred the matter pertaining to registration of the instrument of the property in question, purportedly under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, considering the land in question to be falling under the residential category and assessing its market value to the tune of Rs. 14,70,000/-. The reference was made by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 14.12.2013, whereafter the respondent no. 4 had issued a notice dated 05.03.2016 to the petitioner informing him that Deficit Stamp Case no. 129 of 2013-14 has been instituted, whereupon the petitioner had authorized her son to appear before the respondent no. 4. The son of the petitioner had then appeared before the respondent no. 4 and had apprised the respondent no. 4 that the plot in question is situated between two canals having no approach road at all. Nonetheless, without considering the submissions made by the son of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4, by the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 has determined the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 93,360/- along with penalty of a sum of Rs. 9,336/-. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 18.04.2016 by filing an appeal before the respondent no. 2, inter alia stating therein that the nature of the land has been determined without any spot inspection and moreover, the land in question is situated between two canals having no approach road within a radius of 500 meter, hence, the order dated 18.04.2016, passed by the respondent no. 4 be set aside, however the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by the impugned order dt. 16.9.2016, merely on the ground that small piece of land having an area of 02 kathas cannot be used for agricultural purposes & has also erroneously held that the land in question is recorded as a developed residential category in the Khesrawar Panji.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a sale deed bearing no. 6909 dated 10.04.2014 was executed with regard to a portion of the same land admeasuring 02 kathas, wherein also, stamp duty and registration charges were paid by showing the land to be belonging to non-residential category, having value to the tune of Rs. 3,03,000/-, however, no objection has been made with regard to the same by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the so called Khesrawar Panji has been prepared without any spot inspection and moreover, the reliance placed upon the Khesrawar Panji is wholly misplaced, as neither the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 nor the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1995”)