ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 24-06-2024 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, i.e. respondent no.5 in Case No.106 of 2022-2023, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,72,809/- along with penalty of a sum of Rs.17281/- totalling a sum of Rs.1,90,090/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that on 15.09.2022, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and one Dewesh Kumar Mishra in respect of a piece of land appertaining to Thana No.66, Khata No.33 & 43, Plot Nos. 718, 703, 709 & 735, admeasuring 60.66 decimal, falling under Mauza Ramgarhwa under Ramgarhwa Anchal of East Champaran District. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Motihari on 15.09.2022, after payment of requisite registration fees and stamp duty, upon showing the value of the land to be a sum of Rs.22,06,000/-, falling under the residential on road irrigated category. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all of a sudden, on 25.03.2023, the petitioner received a notice dated 17.03.2023, issued by the respondent no.5, directing the petitioner to appear before him in connection with Case No.106 of 2022-23. It is also contended that though the date of appearance of the petitioner was fixed as 24.03.2023, however, the petitioner received noticed on 24.03.2023 itself, hence the petitioner could not appear before the respondent no.5 and later on, he came to know that the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 has been passed against the petitioner in connection with Case No.106 of 2022-23, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and fine to the tune of Rs.1,90,090/-. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order dated 24.03.2023 has been passed ex parte without hearing the petitioner and/or granting him any opportunity to put forth his defence, hence the same is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that reference in the present case has been made by the Sub-Registrar, Motihari to the respondent no.5, only after registration of the sale deed on 15.09.2022, hence on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 is illegal and fit to be set aside. In this connection, 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 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