Patna High Court

Smt. Puja DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: A ABHISHEK REDDY

Holding

The ex‑parte order dated 30‑Oct‑2017 under Section 47A(1) is illegal and arbitrary and is set aside, with the related certificate proceedings also quashed.

Summary

The petitioner purchased a property in November 2014, had the sale deed registered and obtained mutation in her name. In October 2017 the Assistant Inspector General of Registration issued an ex‑parte order under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, alleging that the instrument was undervalued and directing the petitioner to pay a stamp‑deficit of Rs 1,70,610, without serving any notice. The petitioner later received a notice in February 2025 threatening arrest if the amount was not paid. She filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the 2017 order, recall the 2025 notice, and restrain any coercive action, contending that the order was beyond the jurisdiction of the registering authority because the reference to the Collector under Section 47A(1) must be made before registration. The Court, relying on its earlier decision in Shahnaw Begam v. State of Bihar, held that the statutory provision permits referral only prior to registration and that the ex‑parte order was therefore illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the 2017 order and the subsequent certificate proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an order under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act can be passed after the instrument has been registered.
Whether the ex‑parte order dated 30‑Oct‑2017 complied with the procedural requirements of the Stamp Act.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies.

Legislation cited

Registration Act, 1908

Subjects

Stamp duty
Section 47A
Undervaluation
Ex‑parte order
Writ petition
Certificate proceedings
Quashing order
Registration

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4200 of 2026
======================================================
Smt. Puja Devi W/o Sri Shyam Babu Singh, Resident of Village- Bela, P.S.-
Bairganiya, Dist- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
5. The Registrar cum District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Dheng, Sitamarhi, Dist- Sitamarhi.
7. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum District Auction Officer,
Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
8. The Circle Officer, Bairganiya, P.S.- Bairganiya, Dist- Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER

2 16-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

“(i) For setting aside the entire
purported proceeding and order dated
30.10.2017 as passed in case No. 132/2016-
17 by Assistant Inspector General of
Registration, Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur or
refence made by sub-registrar, Sitamarhi U/S
47 A (1) of the Stamp Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/7

(ii) For further also direct the
respondent authority the certificate officer to
re-call the last notice dated 22.02.2025
which has been served upon the petitioner
dated 08.04.2025 and further direct to drop
the proceeding of district certificate case No.
12/2019-2020 in the interest of justice.
(iii) For further also direct the
respondent authority not to take any sort of
coercive step against the petitioner till the
disposal of the present writ application. In
view of the fact that order impugned is
without jurisdiction.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property

in the month of November, 2014 and the sale-deed was

registered on 26.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in

physical possession of the property and the land was mutated in

her name. That it appears on 30.10.2017, the respondent No. 3

herein has issued a letter alleging certain irregularities in

determining the market value of the documents registered in

favour of the petitioner and action was sought to be taken under

Section 47A(1) of the Stamp Act. Thereafter, on 31.10.2017, the

Assistant Inspector General of Registration Office, Tirhut

Division Muzaffarpur (i.e., Respondent No. 3 herein) has passed

an ex-parte order against the petitioner alleging that the

instrument is undervalued and the same has caused revenue loss

to the exchequer and the petitioner was directed to deposit the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/7

stamp deficit amount of Rs. 1,70,610/- within sixty days from

the said order failing which the Registrar was directed to issue a

recovery certificate under Rule 12(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the

petitioner has received a notice dated 22.02.2025 served on

08.04.2025 from the Certificate Officer, Sitamarhi with a

direction to deposit the outstanding amount and if the said

amount is not deposited then arrest warrant will be issued

against her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the order of the Assistant Inspector

General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur

30.10.2017 and the subsequent communications directing the

petitioner to deposit the deficit stamp duty was never served on

the petitioner. That the authority without issuing any notice to

the petitioner has straightaway passed the ex-parte order.

Thereafter, the authority has initiated certificate proceedings

against the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about the

passing of the orders by the Additional Inspector General of

Registration and also the subsequent letters only when the

notice issued by the Certificate Officer was received by the

petitioner on 08.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
4/7

authority is per se illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act

and also the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in a catena of

cases. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this

Hon’ble Court in the case of Manju Dwivedi Vs. State of Bihar

& Ors. reported in 2024 1 BLJ 161.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very

maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has

stated that the petitioner without availing the alternative and

efficacious remedy of filing an appeal has approached this

Hon’ble Court straightaway. Learned counsel has submitted that

the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the

Assistant Inspector General of Registration and without

assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to

dismiss the present writ petition.

6. Admittedly, the facts in this particular case are not

in dispute Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as

amended by the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act 2013,

published in the gazette on 03.05.2013 reads as under;

“(1) Where the registering officers
appointed under the 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
5/7

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.”

7. This Hon’ble Court while interpreting Section

47(A)(1) of the Stamp Act in the case of Shahnaw Begam vs.

the State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 293 has

held as under;

"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 property which is the
subject matter of such instrument and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
6/7

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."

8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and

circumstances and also the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court

in the above referred case, the present writ petition is allowed.

The order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Assistant Inspector
Patna High Court CWJC No.4200 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
7/7

General of Registration, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case

No. 132/2016-17 is set aside and consequentially, the

registration of the certificate proceedings vide Certificate Case

No. 12/2019-2020 is also quashed.

9. The present writ petition stands allowed to the

extent indicated.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…