Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Stamp Case No. 7 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 has directed the petitioner to deposit additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,30,200/- along with penalty of Rs. 13,020/-.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.2020, the petitioner had purchased the land appertaining to Khata (Old) No. 1146 admeasuring 16 decimals from one Ram Pratap Yadav situated at Mauja-Jadia, Thana No. 299, Tauzi No. 6122, Bikramganj, District-Supaul after paying sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 4,56,000/- and upon payment of the requisite stamp duty, sale deed was registered on 23.06.2020. It is further submitted that merely after two years of registration of sale deed in question, enquiry was initiated by the respondent no. 7 with regard to category of the land as to whether the same is residential-C category or residential-B category, whereupon he came to the conclusion that the land in question is residential land of B category and not that of C category, whereafter he had referred the matter under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1899’) to the respondent no. 5 who had then initiated a case bearing Stamp Case No. 7 of 2022, whereafter an ex parte order dated 27.09.2022 has been passed by the respondent no. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that neither the petitioner was issued notice by the respondent no. 5 nor the petitioner was heard and instead an ex parte order dated 27.09.2022 has been passed by the respondent no. 5. It is contended 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. 7 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 5 after registration of the sale deed on 23.06.2020, 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.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has referred to the counter affidavit filed in the present case to submit that after the sale deed in question was registered on 23.06.2020, wherein the nature of land was mentioned by the vendor as residential, class-C, a complaint was made by one Sanjeev Kumar on 28.01.2021 before the respondent no. 7 that the vendee has deliberately suppressed the value of the land in question and the nature of land is in fact residential, class-B, whereupon the respondent no. 7 had inspected the land in question and had made reference to the respondent no. 5 in light of the provisions contained under Section 47A(1) of the Act, 1899, whereafter the respondent no. 5 had instituted a deficit Stamp Case No. 7 of 2022 and issued notices to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.09.2022, however, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent no. 5, hence the respondent no. 5 had passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2022, as aforesaid. Thus it is submitted that there is no error in the procedure adopted by the respondents for the purposes of realisation of deficit stamp duty.

4. 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