Patna High Court
Munni Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2024
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17997 of 2023
======================================================
Munni Devi W/o Dwarikanath Singh, R/o Chhitauli Kalan, Laxmiganj,
Siwan, Bihar-841439.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Inspector General of Registration, Patna.
2. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Saran Division, Chapra.
3. The Registrar, Department of Registration, Saran.
4. The Sub-Divisional Registrar, Barharia, Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to SC-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-06-2024
The present writ petition has been filed
for setting aside the order dated 10.06.2023
passed by the Assistant Inspector General of
Registration, Siwan Division, Chapra i.e. the
respondent no. 2 in Stamp Case No. 41 of 2023,
whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been
directed to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of
Rs. 1,05,738/- along with penalty @ 10 per cent of
the said amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 10,574/- totaling
to a sum of Rs. 1,16,312/-.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
2/11
the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a
piece of land situated in village-Chhitauli Kala
under Circle Office-Goriakothi, Siwan, appertaining
to Khata No. 8, Tauji No. 1625, Khesra No. 806
having an area of 13.023 decimal, on 16.03.2023
from one Kismati Sah.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner has not suppressed anything in the sale
deed as far as the land/boundary and locality of the
land in question is concerned and he has also
deposited the registration charges and the stamp
duty as per the circle rate fixed for the area. It is
also submitted that the registering authority did
not raise any objection at the time of registration of
the sale deed on 16.03.2023. Nonetheless, the
petitioner received a notice in connection with
Stamp Case No. 41 of 2023, to which the petitioner
had submitted her reply categorically stating
therein that the land in question is "Bhith" land and
not commercial land. However, the respondent no.
2, by the impugned order dated 10.06.2023, has
directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp fee
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
3/11
to the tune of Rs. 1,05,738/- along with a fine of Rs.
10,574/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised a legal issue for consideration by this
Court to the effect that as per Section 47(A)(1) of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, reference can be made
by the registering authority 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, the Sub-Registrar, Barharia, Siwan has
referred the matter to the respondent no. 2 after
registration of the sale deed on 16.03.2023 vide
letter dated 18.04.2023, hence the said reference
itself is bad in law. In this connection, reference has
been made to Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, which is reproduced herein below:-
"47-A (1) Where the registering
officers appointed under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
4/11
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
5/11
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 duty
payable thereon."
5. In this connection, 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 vs.
Smt. Tetra Devi), paragraphs no. 14 and 15
whereof, are reproduced herein below :-
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
6/11
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 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 Ld. 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
7/11
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 property which is the subject
matter of such instrument and the
duty payable thereon and if,after
such examination, he has reason to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
8/11
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
9/11
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."
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that upon enquiry and
inspection of the land in question, it was found that
the transferred land is adjacent to the pucca road
of the village and shops are situated nearby, hence
the nature of the transferred land was found to be
commercial in nature, thus the Sub-Registrar,
Barharia, has sent a proposal under Section 47-A
(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to the respondent
no. 2 to initiate deficit stamp case, whereupon
respondent no. 2 had initiated Stamp Case No. 41
of 2023, whereafter notice was issued to the
petitioner and then the impugned order dated
10.06.2023
has been passed by the respondent no.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
2, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp
duty.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the materials on record
from which it is clear that a reference can be made
under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, with regard to determination of the
classification of the property, only before
registration of the sale deed in question and not
thereafter, as is clear from Section 47(1)(A) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & moreover, this aspect of
the matter stands covered by a judgment, rendered
by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Shahnaz Begam (supra). This Court finds that
admittedly, the Sub-Registrar, Barharia, without
any authority or jurisdiction, has referred the
matter to the Respondent No. 2, under Section
47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, after
registration of the sale deed, which is itself
contrary to the mandate of Section 47(A)(1) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, hence the reference itself
is bad in the eyes of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17997 of 2023 dt.21-06-2024
9. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the forgoing
reasons, this Court finds that the action of the
respondent no. 2 as also that of the Sub-Registrar,
Barharia is not only arbitrary but also perverse and
illegal and in teeth of Section 47-A(1) of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, hence the impugned order date
10.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 is
unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus is quashed.
10. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.07.2024
Transmission Date N/A
