S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This application has been referred by petitioners against the orders dated 23.10.1999 passed in Certificate Case No. 279/98-99 and order dated 30.10.1999 passed in Certificate Case No. 280/98-99 whereby and whereunder the respondent- District Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh directed the petitioners to deposit the amount, in question, in lieu of less Court-fee stamp made for registered deeds.

2. The case of the petitioner is that they purchased two sets of land from one Deoki Devi, vide two registered deed Nos. 4327 and 4317, dated 21.4.1992 duly registered by the District Sub-registrar, Hazaribagh, for an area mentioned in the deeds. In the year 1996, when it came to the notice of the vendor and vendees, certain mistake in respect to plots made correction in 1992 registered deeds through two separate registered deeds executed on 8.11.1996.

The Registrar. Registration Officer, Hazaribagh, vide letter dated 6.2.1997 while referred the subsequent registered deeds dated 8.11.1996, intimated the petitioners that th(sic) are liable to pay more stamp duty/registration fee, the valuation having shown Rs. 9,000/- and registration fee having enhanced since promulgation of new 1995 Rule. Two Case Nos. 298/97 and 299/97 in respect to payment of farther stamp duty/registration fee were instituted wherein final orders were passed both on 17.3.1997 raising demand for payment of further stamp duty/registration fee to the tune of Rs. 38,039/- and Rs. 38,029/-, respectively with stipulation that on failure, certain proceedings shall be initiated.

After the aforesaid orders, the rest of the amount for stamp duty/registration fee having not deposited. Certificate Case Nos. 279/98-99 and 280/98-99 were initiated wherein impugned orders were passed on 23.10.1999 and 30.10.1999.

While the petitioners have raised the question of legality and propriety of orders both dated 17.3.1997 passed in Certificate Case Nos. 298/97 and 299/97 by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Hazaribagh have also challenged the validity of the certificate cases for recovery of the amount in question.

3. According to the respondents, the two sale-deeds were executed by Smt. Deoki Devi in favour of Sri Baleshwar Mahto and Smt. Bajani Devi in the Office of district Registration Officer, Hazaribagh on 21.4.1992. Therein, one acre of land was sold in favour of Sri Baleshwar Mahto and another one acre was sold in favour of Smt. Bajani Devi showing consideration money of Rs. 9,000/- in each deed. The documents were accepted and registered vide No. 4351/4327 and 4341/ 4317, respectively. Through Deed No. 4327 vendor Smt. Deoki Devi sold the land in favour of Sri Baleshwar Mahto of Village Jagdishpur No. 168, having Khata No. 234. Plot No. 2213, Area 76-1/2 decimals out of 1.53 acres and Plot No. 2199, Area 23-1/2 decimals out of 1.30 acres. Through Deed No. 4317, vendor Smt. Deoki Devi sold the land in favour of Smt. Bajani Devi of village Jagdishpur No. 168, having Khata No. 234, Plot No. 2213, Area 76-1/2 decimals out of 1.53 acres and Plot No. 2199, Area 23-1/2 decimals out of 1.350 acres. Two rectification deeds in respect to the previous Deed Nos. 4327 and 4317, both dated 21.4.1992, were presented for registration by Smt. Deoki Devi on 8.11.1996 in the same Registry Office. Hazaribagh. However, as a matter of fact, in both the rectification deeds, the vendor Smt. Deoki Devi added one more Khata, changed the area as well as altered the boundary by way of rectification. In course of examination of rectification deeds it having found that the deeds were not for formal rectification but for material change following general principle of registration rules, they were treated to be original deeds liable for stamp duty/registration fee, as an original document, there being changed of consideration money, Khata etc.

4. Admittedly, the provision has been made for rectification of deed to rectify the error, omission or other defect which may have inadvert