Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2022, passed by the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, i.e. the Respondent No. 3, in Deficit Stamp Case No. 89 of 2022-23, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 86,982/- on the head of deficit stamp duty plus a sum of Rs. 8,699/- on the head of penalty, totalling to a sum of Rs. 95,681/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner had purchased land, situated at Mauza- Achalpur Piparahi, Thana No. 143, Anchal & P.S.-Ladania, Sub registry office-Jainagar, District-Madhubani, vide sale deed registered on 24.1.2022, after payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges. The description of the land purchased by the petitioner are as follows:—

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid land in question is a vacant land and no pucca structure is situated over it, hence, the petitioner had mentioned the said land to be falling under the residential category in the aforesaid sale deed registered on 24.1.2022, after payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges. Subsequently, the District Sub-Registrar, Jainagar, Madhubani, i.e. the Respondent No. 6, appears to have referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3 on 01.02.2022 for determination of the category of the land and calculation of the deficit stamp duty on the pretext that upon enquiry, the aforesaid land in question has been found to be falling under the developing residential category, over which pucca house is constructed, leading to increase in the MVR value. The Respondent No. 3 had then initiated Deficit Stamp Case No. 89 of 2022-23, whereafter notice was issued to the petitioner and then the impugned order dated 20.6.2022 has been passed by the Respondent No. 3, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 95,681/- on the head of deficit stamp duty and penalty charges.

4. 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. 6 has referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3, under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1899”), on 01.02.2022, i.e. after registration of the sale-deed on 24.1.2022, hence, the said reference itself is bad in law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 47(A)(1) of 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 marke