Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Patna Division, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 4 in Deficit Stamp Case No. 37 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of a sum of Rs. 1,54,400/- + a penalty of Rs. 15,440/- totalling to a sum of Rs. 1,69,840/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that they purchased a residential flat bearing Flat No. 204A along with car parking in the basement, in a multi storied apartment in the name and style of Raj Complex, situated at Mauza-Dasaratha, Thana-Phulwarisharif, P.S. Beur, District- Patna vide registered sale deed dated 24.03.2023, executed at the office of the Sub Registrar, Patna, after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. The petitioners had subsequently received notice in connection with Deficit Stamp Case No. 37 of 2023, whereafter they had appeared and filed their objections, nonetheless, the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 has been passed by the respondent no. 4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that reference can be made by the Registering Officer 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 Sub-Registrar, Patna has referred the matter to the respondent no. 4 only after registration of the sale deed on 24.03.2023, hence the said reference itself is bad in law.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1899’), which is reproduced herein below:—

“47-A (1) Where the registering officers appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement is satisfied that the classification of the property and/ or the measurement of the structure contained in the property which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth wrongly or the market value of the property, which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth at a lower rate than the Guideline Register of Estimated Minimum Value prepared under the rules framed under the provision of this Act, he shall refer such instrument before registering it to the Collector for determination of the proper market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.

Provided that where the market value of the property of the instruments described above has been fixed at an amount which is not less than the value prescribed in the Guide Line Register of estimated minimum value prepared under the rules framed under the provisions of this Act, but the registering officer has reasons to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been rightly set forth or it is higher than the estimated minimum value, he after registering such instrument, shall refer it by assigning proper reasons to the Collector for determination of proper market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.

5. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 136 (The State of Bihar and others vs. Smt. Tetra Devi), paragraphs no. 14 and 15 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow:—

“14. In the present case, it is the Collector who has issued notice on the ground that the document registered is deficient in stamp duty. He might have issued notice on the report of the Sub-Registra