ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 07-04-2023 The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 27.04.2018, passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Saran Division at Chapra i.e. respondent no.4, whereby &

whereunder by an ex-parte order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.71,760/- along with penalty of Rs.7,176/-, totaling to a sum of Rs.78,936/-, in connection with registration of sale deed dated 27.07.2017. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 18.08.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Stamp Appeal No. 09 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner had purchased the land in question, as has been described in paragraph no.4 of the present writ petition, vide sale deed dated 27.07.2017, and the nature of the land being residential and a developing land, the market value was determined to the tune of Rs.9,86,000/-, whereupon the petitioner had paid the requisite stamp duty amounting to a sum of Rs.78,880/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, after being put in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land in question, had applied for opening of jamabandi in his name, whereupon the jamabandi has also been created in the name of the petitioner and he has started paying revenue to the State Government, however, suddenly after two years of registration of the sale deed in question, the petitioner received a notice from the ofÏce of the District Registration OfÏce, Saran at Chapra dated 17.08.2019, whereupon the petitioner enquired into the matter and came to know about passing of an ex-parte order dated 27.04.2018, whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been directed to pay deficit stamp duty. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the learned court of Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra bearing Appeal No. 09 of 2021, upon the petitioner having been directed to do so after he had approached this Court, by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 19652 of 2019, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.08.2022.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reference can be made by the Registering OfÏcer, 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. 5 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 4, only after registration of the sale deed on 27.07.2017, hence the said reference itself is bad in law. It is also submitted by referring to Section 47-A (3) of the Act, 1899 that the higher authority of the registration department can also suo motu call for and examine the instrument in question for the purpose of satisfying itself regarding the correctness of the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon, within a period of two years from the date of registration, however in the present case, the said provision of law has not been invoked.

4. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaz Begam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 293, paragraphs no. 6 to 9 whereof are reproduced herein below:- "6. It, thus, follows that the Registering Authority can only refer the matter before registering it to the Collector for determination of the proper market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In the present case, it is quite clear that the registra