PRASHANT KUMAR MAHENSARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents no. 3 and 4 to register and release the registered copy of the sale deed dated 12.03.2014 received vide token no. 1129, issued by the respondent no.4, for quashing the order dated 27.01.2016 issued by the respondent Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Munger Division, Munger (hereinafter referred to as "AIG") in Stamp Case No. 15/ 2015 in a proceeding under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act as well as for directing the respondent no.3 for inclusion of rates for irrigated/ agricultural category of land in the Minimum Valuation Register (MVR) under Rule 5 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 pertaining to Nagar Panchayat, Gogri, Jamalpur and for declaring that in absence of an entry of rates specified in the MVR for irrigated/ agricultural lands for Nagar Panchayat Gogri, Jamalpur, the respondents cannot draw benefit of such absence in the MVR and recover stamp duty and registration charges at higher rates from the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has purchased a plot being irrigated/ agricultural at Mauza- Jamalpur, Thana No. 309/1, Nagar Panchayat, Gogri, Ward No. 12, Khata No. 80, Kheshra No. 236, 237, 238 and 239 ad measuring 157.00 decimals. The said land was purchased by the petitioner from Basudev Pansari and Ors. The petitioner had declared the value of land in the sale deed as Rs. 23,70,000/-, by adopting the rates of irrigated/ agricultural land mentioned in the MVR pertaining to Mauza-Jamalpur and had then presented the sale deed for registration before the respondent no.4 on 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the District Sub-Registrar, Khagaria by a letter dated 22.02.2014 had called for a report from the Circle Officer, Gogri regarding Khesra number in question to the effect as to whether the said land was residential or not. The Circle Officer, Gogri by his letter dated 05.03.2014 had written to the District Sub-Registrar, Khagaria stating that the aforesaid land in question was inspected by the Halka-Karmchari and Incharge Circle Inspector and it has been found that the said land is an irrigated/ agricultural land. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 is said to have verbally informed the petitioner that the stamp duty totalling to a sum of Rs. 1,89,600/- shall be payable for registration of the sale deed in question, whereafter the petitioner duly paid the said amount by way of stamp duty as also the registration charges, however, the sale deed was then not provided to the petitioner herein, whereupon the petitioner approached the respondent no.4, who intimated him that the matter has been referred to the respondent no.2 under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Subsequently, a notice dated 31.03.2014 was issued by the AIG, Munger Division, Munger to the petitioner herein, initiating a proceeding under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for recovery of deficit stamp duty amounting to a sum of Rs.25,01,868/-. The petitioner had then appeared before the respondent no.2, however, neither any hearing was conducted nor any enquiry, as contemplated under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was conducted, but instead the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 was passed by the respondent no.2 in Stamp Case No. 15/2015 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.2, relying upon the report of the Registration Officer, treating the aforesaid land to be under the Nagar Panchayat, Ward No.12 and not relying upon the report of the Circle Officer dated 05.03.2014, fixed the deficit amount of stamp duty, recoverable from the petitioner, as Rs. 25,01,868/-.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rules 5 and 6 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as the "Rules, 1995") provides that the Collector of the District shall classify the lands of rural or urban area and prepare a register showing estimated minimum value of the land/ properties of that category as per the procedure prescribed under Rules 6 of the Rules 1995. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Rules, 1995, for the purposes of determination of estimated minimum market value of the land and property in question, the matter can be referred by the District Sub- Registrar to the District authorities of the State. In the instant case, since there was no entry in the MVR for Nagar Panchayat, Gogri, the respondent no.4 had requested the Circle Officer, Gogri to provide a physical inspection report of the land in question whereupon the Circle Officer, Gogri had reported that the said land in question was do fasla irrigated/ agricultural land. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said report of the Circle Officer ought to have been accepted by the respondent no. 4 for the purposes of valuation of the land in question, hence the respondent no.4 has committed a gross error by referring the matter to the respondent no.2 under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was heard nor any enquiry was made under section 47(A) (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, hence the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing to deny the liability under section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 is violative of the principles of natural justice, hence is fit to be set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 27.01.2016 is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind by the respondent no.2.