Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.8.2014, passed by the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Saran Division, Chapra, i.e. the Respondent No. 5, in Stamp Case No. 15 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,120/- on the head of deficit stamp duty, apart from 10% penalty i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,820/-, totalling to a sum of Rs. 19,940/-. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 20.12.2019, passed by the learned Court of Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, i.e. the Respondent No. 2, in Stamp Appeal Case No. 228 of 2018, 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 piece of land, ad-measuring 1 Katha, 8 dhur, appertaining to Khata No. 144, Plot No. 356, situated at Village-Fuchati Khurd, P.S.-Ekma, District-Saran, by a registered sale-deed, which was executed on 19.1.2013 and the same was registered by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ekma, after payment of the requisite registration charges and stamp duty. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons anemical to the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Respondent No. 5 that the nature of the land, purchased by the petitioner, is residential, however, in the sale deed, the same has been shown to be an agricultural land, whereafter enquiry was made and then the Sub-Registrar, Ekma, had referred the matter to the Respondent No. 5, vide letter dated 11.6.2014 for determination of deficit stamp duty and then the Respondent No. 5 had registered Stamp Case No. 15 of 2013 and issued notice to the petitioner, whereupon he had passed the impugned order dated 14.8.2014, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 19,940/-, by way of deficit stamp duty and penalty amount. The petitioner had then filed an appeal bearing Stamp Appeal Case No. 228 of 2018, however, the Respondent No. 2 has dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 20.12.2019.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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, Ekma, has referred the matter to the respondent no. 5 after registration of the sale-deed on 19.1.20213, hence the said reference itself is bad in law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1899”), which is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“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