Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2022, passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga i.e. the respondent no. 2 in Stamp Case No. 20 of 2021-22, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 2,12,640/- along with a fine of Rs. 21,264/- totalling to a sum of Rs. 2,33,904/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a land admeasuring 19 katha 3 dhur, falling under the agricultural category situated at Mauza-Sadhwara, Thana No. 144, Circle-Singhwara bearing Khata No. 352(new), Khesra No. 1030(old), 2195(new) and the sale deed was registered by the District Sub Registrar, Darbhanga, i.e. the Respondent No. 4, after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges on 28.10.2020. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner to appear in the case initiated by him bearing Stamp Case No. 20 of 2021- 22, wherein the petitioner had appeared and then the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 has been passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,33,904/- on the head of deficit stamp duty and penalty charges.

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 respondent no. 4 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 2 admittedly only after registration of the sale deed on 28.10.2020, hence the said reference itself is bad in law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also 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 petitioner 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 herein below:—

“14. In the present case, it is the Collector who has issued not