QUAYAMUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 10/6/2023, passed by the Assistant Inspector General Registration, Saran Division, Chapra, in Stamp Case No. 24 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,74,240.00 along with penalty of a sum of Rs.17,424.00, totalling to a sum of Rs.1,91,664.00.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is Motwali of Madarsa Islamia Arabia Naimia, Sonbarsa, P.O.-G.B.Nagar, District-Saran, which was established long back and some lands were donated by donors including the Motwali of the aforesaid Madarsa, whereafter a gift deed was executed on 8/2/2023 in favour of Madarsa Islamia Arabia Naimia through its Motwali i.e. the petitioner herein and the same was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Maharajganj, i.e. the Respondent No. 3, on 8/2/2023, after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. It is submitted that the nature of land is Dih and the valuation has been made as per the minimum value register. Nonetheless, the Respondent No. 3, vide letter dtd. 18/3/2023, referred the matter to the Respondent No. 2 to realize the deficit stamp duty, whereupon spot inspection was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, Stamp Case No. 24 of 2023 was initiated by the Respondent No. 2 and then the impugned order dtd. 10/6/2023 was passed by the Respondent No. 2.

(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. 3 has referred the matter to the respondent no. 2 only after registration of the gift deed on 8/2/2023, hence the said reference itself is bad in law. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sec. 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1899"), which is reproduced hereinbelow:-