Patna High Court
Ram Gopal PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The impugned order dated 30‑03‑2019 is set aside and the certificate proceedings are quashed.
Summary
The petitioner purchased a residential land parcel by a sale deed dated 08‑01‑2016. More than four years later the Sub‑Registrar referred the deed to the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and the Assistant Inspector General of Registration imposed a deficit stamp duty and fine without issuing a show‑cause notice or conducting an enquiry. Subsequent notices and certificate proceedings were issued after a lapse of two and six years respectively, which the petitioner contended violated the statutory time‑limits and principles of natural justice. The respondents argued that the petitioner could appeal the order and raise objections under the Public Demand Recovery Act. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 47A and held that any reference for valuation must be made before registration or within five years, and that the order was passed without due notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order of 30‑03‑2019 and quashed the certificate proceedings, allowing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order imposing deficit stamp duty and fine under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act is valid when issued after the statutory period and without notice.
- Whether certificate proceedings for recovery of stamp duty can be initiated after the lapse of the period prescribed under Section 47A.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to natural justice was violated by the manner of the assessment.
Legislation cited
- Public Demand Recovery Act — s. 10, 7, 9
Subjects
- stamp duty
- Section 47A
- natural justice
- certificate proceedings
- Public Demand Recovery Act
- writ petition
- certiorari
- registration of sale deed
- limitation period
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18321 of 2025
======================================================
Ram Gopal Prasad, Son of Late Kishun Saw, Resident of Village-Barsa,
Police Station-Ariari, District-Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Inspector General of Registration,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Munger Division, Munger.
3. The Collector cum District Registrar, Sheikhpura.
4. The Sub Registrar, Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura.
5. THe Certificate-cum-District Planning Officer, Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (27)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
5 17-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari setting aside the impugned
order bearing Memo No. 138 dated
30.03.2019 issued under the signature of
Respondent No. 2 whereby and
whereunder petitioner has been directed
to deposit deficit Stamp duty along with
fine totalling a sum of Rs. 2,00,222/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
2/10
(Rupees Two Lacs Two Hundred Twenty
Two) in connection with registration of a
sale deed which had taken place on
08.01.2016 and contrary to statutory
provision under Section 47A(1) of Stamp
Act 1988 with regard to determination of
Classification of property which can only
be done prior to registration of Sale Deed
in question and not thereafter and as such
impugned order is in teeth of statutory
provision as also in gross violation of
principle of Natural justice and
Respondents may be debarred from
proceeding any further in this matter.
(ii) For quashing the notice dated
08.04.2019 issued under the signature of
Respondent No. 4 whereby and
whereunder a demand for aforesaid
deficit Stamp duty alongwith validation
fees of rs. 43,480/- totalling a sum of Rs.
2,43,702/- has been raised.
(iii) For further quashing the
consequential impugned notice bearing
Memo No. 772 dated 10.05.2025 issued
from the level of Respondent No. 5
whereby and whereunder notice under
Section 7 of Public Demand Recovery Act
(P.D.R. Act) has been issued to the
petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.
2,83,748/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
3/10
Three Thousand Seven Hundred Forty
Eight) without proper adjudication of
liabilities against the petitioner following
established norms in accordance with
law.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner
has purchased three (3) decimal of residential land vide
registered sale deed dated 08.01.2016. Thereafter the authority,
i.e., the Respondent No. 4 after the lapse of more than four years
has sent a proposal to the District Collector for determination of
the deficit stamp duty contrary to the provisions of the Indian
Stamp Act, more particularly, Section 47(A). That the
Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Assistant Inspector General of
Registration without issuing any show cause notice to the
petitioner or conducting any inquiry has passed the final order
imposing fine on the petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent No.
4, i.e., the Sub- Registrar, Sheikhpura consequent to the order
passed by the Respondent No. 2 dated 30.03.2019 has sent a
notice to the petitioner on 08.04.2019, but the same was not
served on him. Thereafter the certificate proceedings have been
initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the defect stamp
duty and fine amount imposed by the Respondent No. 2 on
10.05.2025, i.e., after the lapse of more than six years. Learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
4/10
counsel submits that the procedure followed by the authority in
initiating the steps for recovery of the deficit stamp duty after 2
years and the initiation of the certificate proceedings after lapse
of more than six years is contrary to the provisions of Indian
Stamp Act, more particularly, Section 47(A) and also the
principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has
relied on the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in a case of Savitri
Devi Versus The State of Bihar and Ors passed in CWJC No.
9294 of 2018 dated 29.08.2022 and also the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Chief Revenue Controlling
Officer cum Inspector General of Registration and Ors Versus
P. Babu passed in Civil Appeal No. 75-76 of 2025 dated
03.01.2025. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
come to know about the initiation of the certificate proceeding
as well as the order passed by the Respondent No. 2 only after
the receipt of the notice dated 10.05.2025. Learned counsel has
therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned
order passed by the authority and also quash the certificate
proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Certificate Case
No. 334 of 2019-20.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents-State has vehemently opposed the very
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
5/10
maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the petitioner
has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal
against the orders passed by the Respondent No. 2. That the
petitioner till date has not challenged the same. Further counsel
has stated that the petitioner can file his objections under
Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act against the notice
dated 10.05.2025 issued under Section 7 of the Public Demand
Recovery Act and the authority duly taking into consideration
the objections filed by the petitioner will pass necessary final
orders under Section 10 of the Public Demand Recovery Act.
Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court to
dismiss the present writ petition.
5. In order to decide the issue involved in the present
writ petition, it is necessary extract the provisions of the Indian
Stamp Act, more particularly, Section 47-A, which reads as
under:-
"47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc.,
undervalued how to be dealt with. (1) If the
Registering Officer appointed under the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act
XVI of 1908) while registering any
instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift,
release of benami right or settlement, has
reason to believe that the market value of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
6/10
the property which is the subject matter of
conveyance, exchange, gift, release of
benami right or settlement, has not been
truly set forth in the instrument, he may,
after registering such same to the Collector
for instrument, refer the determination of
the market value of such property and the
proper duty payable thereon.
(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-
section (1), the Collector shall, after giving
the parties a reasonable opportunity of
being heard and after holding an enquiry in
such manner as may be prescribed by rules
made under this Act, determine the market
value of the property which is the subject
matter of conveyance, exchange, gift,
release of benami right or settlement and
the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any,
in the amount of duty, shall be payable by
the person liable to pay the duty.
(3) The Collector may, suo motu or
otherwise, within five years from the date of
registration of any instrument of
conveyance, exchange, gift, release of
benami right or settlement 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
7/10
conveyance, exchange, gift, release of
benami right or settlement and the duty
payable thereon and if after such
examination, he has reason to believe that
the market value of the property has not
been truly set forth in the instrument, 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."
6. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the above mentioned cases while interpreting Section 47-A of
the Indian Stamp Act has held as under:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Chief
Revenue Controlling Officer cum Inspector
General of Registration and Ors Versus P.
Babu held in Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2025
dated 03.01.2025:-
18. Under Section 47-A(1) and under Section
47-A(3), if the Registering Authority has reason
to believe that the instrument of conveyance did
not reflect the correct market value of the
property, then the Registering Authority has the
power to refer the same to the Collector for
determination of market value of the property
and the Collector, on reference, under Section
47-A(1), may determine the market value of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
8/10
such property in accordance with the procedure
prescribed. Enquiry by the Registering
Authority is a for to the Collector for pre-
condition making reference determination of
market value of the property. The determination
of market value without Notice of hearing to
parties is liable to be set aside. When the
Registering Authority finds that the value set
forth in an instrument was less than the
minimum value determined in accordance with
the Rules, in that event, the Registering
Authority is empowered to refer the instrument
to the Collector for determination of market
value of such property and the Stamp Duty
payable thereon.
The Hon’ble High Court in a case of Savitri
Devi Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. held
in CWJC No. 9294 of 2018 dated 29.08.2022:-
7. 1 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
9/10
Shahnaz Begam (supra), as also by the one
rendered by the learned Division Bench of this
Court in case of Tetra Devi (supra). This Court
finds that admittedly, the Respondent No. 5,
without any authority or jurisdiction, has
referred the matter to the Respondent No. 3,
under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, after more than seven years which is itself
contrary to the mandate of Section 47(A)(1) of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In any view of the
matter, even the Respondent No. 3 has got no
power to suo motu review the correctness of the
market value of the property which is the
subject matter of the instrument in question &
the duty payable thereon, after a lapse of two
years from the date of registration of such
instrument.
7. In this particular case also, the authorities have
initiated the proceedings for recovery of the deficit stamp fee
against the petitioner without putting the petitioner on notice
and that too after a lapse of two years.
8. Having regard to the same, the impugned order
dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 is set aside,
consequently, the certificate proceedings bearing Certificate
Case No. 334 of 2019-20 against the petitioner are hereby
quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2025(5) dt.17-03-2026
10/10
9. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands allowed.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…