A. Abhishek Reddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“i. For issuance of appropriate Writ, especially, in nature of Certiorari, to set aside the initiation of Case No. 06/2015-16, under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act, by the Additional Inspector General of Registration (Respondent No.-3) on the basis of reference made by the respondent No.- 5, the Registering Officer, who after registering the sale deed No, 1154 dated 12/03/2015 in the name of petitioner made reference to the Respondent No.-3 to realize deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,54,400 on aforesaid sale deed, alleging its market value is Rs. 43,40,000/-. Section 47 A of the India Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013, envisages that the registering authority can refer the instrument to the Collector to assess the value of the property before registering it but not thereafter.

(ii) Further prayer is to call for the record of the Case No.- 06/2015-16 from the office of respondent No.- 3 and set aside the entire proceeding including order contained in Memo No. 331 dated 15/09/2015 issued by the Respondent No.- 3 directing the petitioner to deposit deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,54,000 and penalty of Rs. 25,440 thereon.

(iii) Further prayer is to set aside the requisition for certificate dated 22/02/2019 made by the Sub-Registrar, Lalganj (Respondent No. 5) to Certificate Officer, Vaisahli (Respondent No.-6) under section 5 of the Public Demand Recovery Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,75,136/-, which includes the late fine on aforesaid alleged deficit stamp duty and penalty.

(iv) Further prayer is to set aside the entire order passed by the certificate officer (Respondent No.-6) in Certificate Case No. 50/2018-19 including the Certificate dated 05/03/2019, arising out of aforesaid requisition dated 22/02/2019.

(v) Further prayer is to quash the consequential notice contained in Memo No.- 218 dated 26/07/2023 issued by the Sub-Registrar, the respondent No.5, directing the petitioner to deposit all together Rs. 8,75,136/- which includes late fine of Rs.- 5,95,296/- otherwise the certificate officer will issue body warrant against the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the act of the authority in passing the impugned order levying a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand) and penalty of Rs. 25,440/- (Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred Forty) is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013, more specifically, Section 47(A). Further, the initiation of the proceedings by the Certificate Officer, Vaishali, District-Vaishali i.e., respondent No. 6 for recovery of Rs. 8,75,136/- (Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty Six) cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has stated that the document of sale was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Lalganj (Annexure-P/1) duly paying the stamp duty and other fees on 12.03.2015. Thereafter, the Sub-Registrar on his own has passed the order dated 10.04.2015 (Annexure-P/2) levying a sum of Rs. 2,54,400/- as a deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, the certificate proceedings were issued by the respondent No. 6 under Section 5 of the Bihar & Orrisa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,75,136/- including the penalty of Rs. 25,440/- (Annexure-P/9). Learned counsel has stated that as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013, the Sub-Registrar will have jurisdiction to verify the stamp duty paid and call for any deficit stamp duty prior to the registration of the document only but once a document is registered, it is only the Collector who can suo moto within two years takes steps for realization of any deficit stamp duty. But in this particular case, the Sub- Registrar concerned contrary to the provisions the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013, more specifically, Section 47(A) has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable