Patna High Court
Smt. Kastura Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1888 of 2018
======================================================
Smt. Kastura Devi Wife of Shri Kanhaiya Prasad, Resident of Village-Bhekas,
Post-Akhlaspur, Police Station-Bhabhua, District-Bhabhua. At Present
residing at Mohalla-Road No.2, New Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, Police
Station-Patrakar Nagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Deputy Inspector General, Department of Registration, Government of
Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey
3. The Assistant Inspector General, Department of Registration, Government of
BIhar, Vikas Bhawan, Bai
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.
5. The Collector-Cum-District Registrar, Patna.
6. The District Sub-Registrar, Patna.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.N. Shahi- AAG-6
Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to AAG-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-08-2022
The present writ petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the order dated 03.06.1997, whereby and
whereunder the District Magistrate, Patna has granted
permission for registration, subject to deposit of stamp fees, as
recommended by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar. The
petitioner has also sought quashing of the appellate order dated
10.10.2017, passed by the learned court of Divisional
Commissioner, Patna in Stamp Appeal no. 295 of 2008,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1888 of 2018 dt.16-08-2022
whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been
rejected.
The legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for consideration by this Court is that admittedly, the
sale deed in question was registered on 14.07.1994, hence the
District Sub-Registrar, Patna had no authority under the law to
refer the matter pertaining to deficit court fees to the Collector,
Patna, thus the reference made by the District Sub Registrar,
Patna vide letter no. 995 dated 02.04.1996 is itself non est in the
eyes of law.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the unamended Section 47-A(1) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"47-A Instrument of conveyance.- (1) Where
the registration officer appointed under the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908)
while registering any instrument of
conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or
settlement, has to believe that the market
value of the property which is the subject
matter of such instrument has not been rightly
set forth in the instrument [or is less than the
minimum value determined in accordance
with any rules made under this Act] he may
(at the time admitting) such instrument refer
Patna High Court CWJC No.1888 of 2018 dt.16-08-2022
the matter to the collector for determination
of the market value of such property and the
proper duty payable thereon."
It is thus submitted that it is clear from
Section 47-A(1) of the un-amended Section of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, as was existing prior to the year 2006 that the
registering authority has the power to refer the matter to the
Collector for determination of the market value of such property
and for fixing the stamp duty payable thereon, in case he 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 in the instrument, but the said power can be exercised
only at the time of admitting such instrument and not thereafter.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a
judgment rendered by the Ld. Division Bench of this Court,
reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 136 (The State of Bihar and others
v. Smt. Tetra Devi).
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
State has though submitted that the Collector has the power to
suo motu call for and examine the instrument in question for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market
value of the property, which is the subject matter of such
instrument and the duty payable thereon, however, upon a query
Patna High Court CWJC No.1888 of 2018 dt.16-08-2022
put forth by this Court as to whether the District Sub- Registrar,
Patna could have referred the matter to the Collector for
determination of the deficit stamp fees after the sale deed had
already stood registered on 14.07.1994, the learned counsel for
the respondent State has submitted that Section 47-A(1) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not say so.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds that since the District Sub- Registrar,
Patna vide letter no. 995 dated 02.04.1996 has referred the
matter, purportedly under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, which though is after registration of the sale deed on
14.07.1994, thus the said reference is contrary to the provisions
contained in Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
hence the entire reference is bad in law. Consequently, the order
of the District Magistrate dated 03.06.1997 and the appellate
order dated 10.10.2017, have also got no legs to stand, thus are
bad in the eyes of law, hence are quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
rinkee/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.08.2022
Transmission Date
