Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Court of Collector, Araria in Deficit Stamp Recovery Case No. 14 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,94,800/- on the head of deficit stamp duty plus a sum of Rs. 1,09,480/- by way of penalty charges, totalling to a sum of Rs. 12,04,280/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a piece of residential land situated at Mauza-Rampur Nagar Parishad, Thana- Forbesganj, Thana No. 142, appertaining to Khata No. 130, Khesra No. 263, admeasuring 34 decimals, from Priya Niwesh Pvt. Ltd. through its Director namely Mahendra Kumar Maroti, after paying sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 58,65,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand) and after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges, the sale deed was registered by the office of the Sub- Registrar, Forbesganj, District-Araria i.e. the respondent no. 8, on 15.10.2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time the aforesaid land was purchased by the petitioner, no construction had been made over the same, nonetheless, after lapse of about five years of registration of the sale deed in question, the respondent no. 7 had initiated an enquiry with regard to the category of the land and had then referred the matter to the Collector, Araria, by a letter dated 14.06.2023, for determining the market value of the land in question after correctly categorizing the same and recovering the deficit stamp duty, leading to registration of Deficit Stamp Recovery Case No. 14 of 2023, whereafter notices were issued to the petitioner and then the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 has been passed by the learned Court of Collector, Araria, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,04,280/- on the head of deficit stamp duty and penalty charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the registering authority i.e. the respondent no.7/respondent no. 8 has got no authority to refer the matter to the higher officials for determination of the proper market value of such property, after correctly categorizing the same and for recovering the deficit stamp duty, after registration of the instrument in question. It is next submitted that as far as the Collector is concerned, he can suo motu within two years from the date of registration of such instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property in question and assess the duty payable thereon, however, in the present case, first of all, reference has been made to the Collector and that too after lapse of about five years of registration of the sale deed and secondly, even the Collector under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1899’), is barred from proceeding to determine the market value of the property in question and the duty payable thereon after lapse of two years, as is apparent from Section 47A(3) of the Act, 1899. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 47A(1) and (3) of the Act, 1899, which are 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, h