Patna High Court
Manorama Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 August, 2024
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4315 of 2015
======================================================
Manorama Devi Wife of Late Mahadeo Prasad Resident of Village- Bangaon
Bazar, P.O,. and p.s.Baj Patt, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate Sitamarhi.
3. The Assistant Registry Inspector General Patna Division Patna.
4. The Assistant Registry, Inspector General Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur,
Muzaffarpur, Comp Sitamarhi
5. The District Sub. Registrar Sitamarhi.
6. The Sub- Registrar Pupri, Sub- Division, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-08-2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 13.11.2014, passed by the Assistant
Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna, in Stamp
Case No.72 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has
been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of
Rs.12,240/- along with penalty of Rs.1,500/- totalling to a sum
of Rs.13,740/-.
2. The brief facts of the case according to the
petitioner are that the petitioner had purchased a piece of land
situated at Mauza-Bangaon, Thana No.108, Khata No.3535, Plot
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
2/10
No.2390, from one Poonam Kumari, vide registered sale deed
dated 11.08.2009, after paying the registration charges and the
stamp duty calculated by the respondents, however,
subsequently the Sub-Registrar, Pupri, District-Sitamarhi, i.e.
the respondent no.6 had submitted a report dated 14.08.2009,
regarding the land falling under the commercial category,
whereupon the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna
Division, Patna had instituted a case, bearing Stamp Case No.72
of 2009 and notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.08.2009.
The petitioner had then submitted his reply, however, the
Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna,
by an order dated 22.02.2011, had directed the petitioner to pay
a sum of Rs.12,240/- on the head of deficit stamp duty along
with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, which was challenged by the
petitioner by filing a writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No.8827 of
2011, before this Court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
by an order dated 08.12.2011 had granted liberty to the
petitioner to explain her case before the respondent no.3,
whereafter she had filed a representation dated 01.09.2012,
before the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna
Division, Patna. The Assistant Inspector General, Registration,
Patna Division, Patna has then passed the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
3/10
13.11.2014
in the aforesaid Stamp Case No.72 of 2019,
directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty along with
penalty, amounting to a sum of Rs.13,740/-. This is how the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that reference can be made by the Registering Officer 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. 6 had referred
the matter to the respondent no. 3 on 14.08.2009 i.e. only after
registration of the sale deed on 11.08.2009, hence the said
reference itself is bad in law.
4. In this connection, reference has been made 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
proper duty payable thereon.
5. In this connection, the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the learned
Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 136
(The State of Bihar and others v. Smt. Tetra Devi), paragraphs
no. 14 and 15 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"14. In the present case, it is the Collector
who has issued notice on the ground that the
document registered is deficient in stamp
duty. He might have issued notice on the
report of the Sub-Registrar or the
Commissioner. The fact remains that he is
exercising his suo motu power. Such notice
could be issued only within two years of the
registration of the document. Even if it is to
be examined that the notice was issued at the
instance of the Sub-Registrar, then the Sub-
Registrar was bound to act at the time of
registration of the document in terms of Rules
9 and 10 reproduced above. He cannot make
recommendation after long delay,
particularly when the officer registering the
document has not made any reference at the
time of registration of the document
15. Thus, we find that initiation of
proceedings by the Collector suffers from
patent illegality and has been rightly set
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
aside by the learned Single Judge. We do not
find any reason to interfere in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the
present Letters Patent Appeal."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
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 hereinbelow:-
"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 registration was already effected
and it was only thereafter that the reference was made to
the Collector/AIG Registration for determination of the
correct value. Furthermore, if at all, a proceeding was to
have been initiated after registration by the Collector suo
motu within the provisions of Section 47A(3), the same
could have been done within a period of two (2) years
from the date of registration of such instrument already
referred to him under Sub Section (1). Provisions as stated
in Section 47A(3) is as follows:-
"The Collector may 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
property which is the subject matter of such instrument
and the duty payable thereon and if, after such
examination, he has reason to believe that the market
value of such property, has not been rightly set forth in
the instrument, [or is less than even the minimum value
determined in accordance with any rules made under
this Act] he may determine the market value of such
property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with
the procedure provided for in sub-section (2). The
difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be
payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
any instrument registered before the date of
commencement of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment
Ordinance, 1986)."
7. It appears from the counter affidavit filed that it is not a
proceeding initiated rather it was a reference to the
Collector under Section 47A (1).
8. In that view of the matter, since the provisions clearly
state that such enquiry can be made only before registering
it to the Collector for determination of the proper market
value of such property and the proper duty payable
thereon. The entire reference is made against the statutory
provisions and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus,
in the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order
dated 16.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-4 is wholly
illegal and arbitrary and has to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.05.2016
as contained in Annexure-4 stands quashed. The writ
application is allowed. No costs."
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit and the
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents that the petitioner has purchased the land in
question by concealing the actual nature of the land, inasmuch
as she had disclosed the nature of the land to be "Dhanhar",
however, upon inquiry the same was found to be commercial in
nature, hence the aforesaid Case No. 72 of 2009 was initiated
and the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty
along with penalty. It is also submitted that the sale deed was
registered on 11.08.2019 and then spot verification of the land
was made, whereafter it transpired that the land in question, falls
under the commercial category, hence the respondent no.6 had
referred the matter to the Assistant Inspector General,
Registration, Patna Division, Patna, on 14.08.2009 or thereafter.
The Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division,
Patna had then instituted Case No.72 of 2009 and notice was
issued to the petitioner on 22.08.2009, whereafter the Assistant
Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna had
passed an order dated 22.02.2011, however, the same was
assailed before this Court by the petitioner, by filing a writ
petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.8827 of 2011 and the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
was granted liberty to approach the respondent no.3 and file her
representation, whereupon the petitioner had filed her
representation and after considering the same, the Assistant
Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna has
passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2014, directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13,740/- on the head of deficit
stamp duty and penalty, thus, it is submitted that there is no
illegality in the action of the respondents.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record, from which it is apparent that
admittedly, reference has been made by the respondent no.6 to
the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division,
Patna, on 14.08.2009 or thereafter, i.e. after registration of the
sale deed on 11.08.2009, which is contrary to the provisions
contained under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, 1899, hence,
undeniably, the respondent no.6 had no authority/jurisdiction to
refer the matter to the Assistant Inspector General, Registration,
Patna Division, Patna, after registration of the sale deed on
11.08.2009. In fact, the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Shahnaz Begam (supra). Thus, this Court finds that the
action of the respondent no.6, as also that of the Assistant
Patna High Court CWJC No.4315 of 2015 dt.08-08-2024
Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna, is not
only arbitrary and perverse but also against the mandate of
Section 47-A(1) of the Act, 1899, hence the impugned order
dated 13.11.2014, passed by the Assistant Inspector General,
Registration, Patna Division, Patna, as also the one dated
22.02.2011, passed by the Assistant Inspector General,
Registration, Patna Division, Patna are quashed, being contrary
to law.
9. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
sonal/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.08.2024
Transmission Date NA
