Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 11.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur i.e. the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 4 of 2019-20, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty along with fine totaling to a sum of Rs. 5,14,553/- in connection with registration of a sale deed which had taken place on 08.03.2019. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Memo dated 08.02.2022, issued by the Assistant District Registrar, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,29,978/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that she had purchased a land appertaining to Mauza-Bahuari, Thana No. 618, Khata No. 34, Khesra/Plot No. 366 admeasuring an area of 45 decimal, falling under the developing category, for a sale consideration of a sum of Rs. 20,25,000/- on 08.03.2019, whereafter, a sale deed was executed and registered on the same day. Thereafter, the Assistant District Magistrate had inquired into the matter and in his report dated 15.03.2019, he had come to the conclusion that the aforesaid land in question falls under the residential category, hence he had referred the matter for recovery of deficit stamp duty, under Section 47 A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1899’). It is also submitted that a proceeding was then initiated under Section 47A (1) of the Act, 1899 on 11.01.2022, whereafter the petitioner was given time to file her objection and finally by the impugned order dated 11.1.2022, the respondent no. 2 had assessed the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 4,67,775/- and had further levied penalty amounting to a sum of Rs. 46,778/-. It is also submitted that the land in question is purely an agricultural land and there is no approach road to the plot in question from the main road apart from the plot in question being land locked, hence the order dated 11.01.2022 is illegal & fit to be set aside.

3. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the mandate of Section 47A(1) of 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 District Sub-Registrar, West Champaran at Bettiah, only after registration of the sale deed on 08.03.2019, 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 co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begum vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 293.

4. Per contra, the leaned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that after the sale deed in question was executed before the District Sub-Registrar, West Champaran on 08.03.2019, an inquiry was made with regard to the category of the land in question, whereupon it was reported that the land in question is in the nature of a residential land, whereupon the District Sub Registrar, West Champaran at Bettiah, being satisfied with the report of the Sub-Registrar, Bagaha to the effect that the present case is a case of evasion of stamp duty, had referred the matter vide his letter dated 30.04.2019 to the respondent no. 2 under Section 47A(1) of the Act, 1899 for recovery of the deficit stamp duty from the petitioner, whereafter the respondent no. 2 had initiated a case bearing Case No. 4/2019-20 & after granting opp