Patna High Court
Mustari KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Collector’s order directing payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Collector to determine the market value himself.
Summary
Mustari Khatoon purchased a residential plot and registered the sale deed on 06.08.2024. The Collector, relying on a joint inquiry by the Sub‑Registrar of Mohania and the District Sub‑Registrar of Kaimur, ordered her to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,65,904 and a penalty of Rs.36,590, alleging undervaluation of the property. The petitioner contended that under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013 the Collector alone must determine the market value after registration and cannot delegate this power to sub‑registrars. The High Court held that the Collector abdicated his statutory duty by relying solely on the sub‑registrars’ report without making his own determination, which is contrary to the law. Consequently, the Court set aside the Collector’s order and remitted the matter to the Collector to independently assess the market value and levy any duty, providing a three‑month period for compliance. The writ application was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector can rely on a joint inquiry by Sub‑Registrars for determining market value under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013.
- Whether the Sub‑Registrar retains jurisdiction to determine stamp duty after registration of an instrument.
- Whether the order directing payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty is valid in view of the statutory procedure.
Subjects
- stamp duty
- Indian Stamp Act
- Section 47A
- collector's powers
- sub‑registrar jurisdiction
- deficit stamp duty
- penalty
- writ jurisdiction
- land registration
- market value determination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7055 of 2025
======================================================
Mustari Khatoon Wife of Mohd Jahid Ansari Resident of village- Thakura
P.S.- Ramgarh District- Kaimur (Bhabhua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Kaimur.
2. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua).
3. The District Sub Registrar, Kaimur.
4. The Sub Registrar, Mohania, Kaimur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arabind Nath Pandey, Adv.
: Mr. Varun Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (9)
: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Ac to Aag9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application
being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Stamp
Appeal No. 1 of 2025 by Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Kaimur at Bhabhua, whereby the Collector has directed to pay
the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 3,65,904/- along with penalty of
Rs. 36,590/- having a total amount of Rs. 402,494/- pursuant to
registration of a sale deed having a piece of land situated at
Khata No. 193, Plot No. 886, Thana No. 335, Mauza-Thakura
having Deed No. 5848 of 2024 dated 06.08.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner purchased a land measuring an area of 3 decimals in
Khata No. 193, Plot No. 888, showing the nature of the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/9
residential parti situated in village Thakura through registered
sale deed dated 06.08.2024. According to the petitioner, he
started construction upon the purchased land. The elder brother-
in-law of the petitioner made a complaint before the Collector
alleging that the petitioner has concealed the fact that the land
purchased by her was parti residential, inasmuch as the double
storey structure has been constructed upon the subject land. The
Sub-Registrar, Mohania, vide letter no. 402 dated 17.12.2024 on
the basis of complaint made by the complainant/Md. Shahid
Ansari and after inquiry referred the matter under Section 47 A
of the Indian Stamp Act before the Collector for determination
of the value of the registered sale deed dated 06.08.2024 for
recovery of the determined value of the residential construction
and amount of deficit stamp in exercise of power under Section
47 A (3) of the Act.
3. Referring to the letter dated 17.12.2024 at
Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits
that from perusal of the contents of the letter, it appears that the
Sub-Registrar, Mohania, forwarded the joint report prepared by
Sub-Registrar, Mohania, and District Sub-Registrar, Kaimur,
before the Collector upon the registered sale deed having a
finding that petitioner has caused revenue loss to the State,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/9
requested the Collector to hold spot inspection of the land
mentioned in the sale deed for the purpose of determination of
the market value of the same and realization of the deficit stamp
duty and penalty.
4. Referring to Section 47 A sub-clause (1) of the
Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the Stamp Act), learned counsel further submits
that while registering any instrument, if the sub-registrar finds
that the instrument has been set forth wrongly and market value
of the property has been declared at a lower rate than the
guideline register of estimated minimum value prepared under
the rules, 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. Therefore,
the submission is that after registration of the document/sale
deed, the Registrar, becomes functus officio and he cannot hold
the inquiry himself and through a joint inquiry held by him
along with the District Sub-Registrar of Kaimur, Bhabua.
5. Learned counsel however submits that of course
Collector has the power after registration of such instrument
under Section 47 A (3) of the Stamp Act, and can examine the
instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
4/9
correctness of the market value of the property which is the
subject matter of such instrument and duty payable thereon and
if after such examination, the collector has reason to believe that
the market value of such property has not been rightly set forth
in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such
property and duty in accordance with the procedure provided in
sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty is
payable by the person liable to pay the duty. The Collector has
not examined the instrument and the duty payable thereon
himself, and it appears that on the basis of complaint made
before the Collector, the inquiry was held by a joint team of
Sub-Registrar, Mohania, and District Sub-Registrar, Kaimur and
the inquiry report along with the letter dated 17.12.2024 was
forwarded before the Collector by the District Sub-Registrar,
Kaimur at Bhabua. The Collector himself has not determined
the market value as prescribed in Section 47 A (3) of the Stamp
Act and has merely relied upon the joint report of two Sub-
Registrars and has passed the impugned order directing the
petitioner to deposit the deficit court fee along with the penalty
in Stamp Appeal No. 1 of 2025.
6. He relies upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court reported in 2025 Volume 1 BLJ 299 and order
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
5/9
dated 04.09.2024 in CWJC No. 4012 of 2024 in which this
Court has held that once an instrument is registered, the Sub-
Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to pass any order for
determination of the stamp duty payable or for realization of any
deficit stamp duty.
7. Learned Counsel also submits that the joint inquiry
conducted by the two Sub-Registrars is vexatious and is a table
inquiry inasmuch as, in the inquiry, it has been shown that
double storey building has been constructed on the purchased
land, whereas the fact of the matter is that the building is still
under construction. Therefore, the determination of the value of
the structure done by the Inquiry Committee is factually
incorrect. If the power under the statute has been conferred upon
the Collector, the Collector cannot abdicate his power and
instead of holding the inquiry for determination of the market
value himself and arriving at a conclusion that the collector has
reason to believe that the market value of such property has not
been rightly set forth in the instrument, he cannot delegate his
power of inquiry and determination of the value to any other
person if at all the collector has done so.
8. Learned counsel, however, submits that there is no
statement in the counter-affidavit or no material on record to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
6/9
show that after receipt of the complaint from Md. Shahid
Ansari, the Collector has directed for joint inquiry of two Sub-
Registrars in purported exercise of power conferred upon him
under section 47 A (3) of the Stamp Act.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state
submits that a complaint was made before the Collector by one
Md. Shahid Ansari and on the basis of the complaint, Stamp
Appeal No. 1 of 2025 was registered by the Collector and a
report was called for from the Sub-Registrar, Kaimur, Mohania,
who after spot verification determined the value of the property
and the structure made there upon and arrived at the conclusion
that the petitioner had disclosed the less value of the property in
sale deed which comes to Rs. 60,98,440/- and as such the
petitioner is liable to pay the deficit stamp duty along with
penalty which has rightly been imposed by the Collector in the
impugned order dated 18.03.2025.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the materials available on record including
the impugned order.
11. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears
that the Collector, as per the statutory provision prescribed
under Section 47 A (3) of the Stamp Act, has not done the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
7/9
determination of the market value himself and has not arrived at
the conclusion having reason to believe that market value of
such property has not been rightly set forth in the instrument. As
per the provisions of Section 47 A (3) of the Stamp Act, it is a
duty of the Collector to examine instrument for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the correctness to the market value of
the property which is the subject matter of such instrument and
duty payable thereon and after such examination, if the
Collector has reason to believe that the market value of such
property has not been rightly set forth in the instrument, he may
determine the market value of such property and duty in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2).
12. In the present case, the Collector, without
determining the market value of the property and the structure
standing thereon, and without arriving at the conclusion on the
basis of his own determination that the market value of such
property has not been rightly set forth merely on the basis of
inquiry done by Sub-Registrar, Mohania, and District Sub-
Registrar, Kaimur, has passed the order directing the petitioner
to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,02,494/- as deficit stamp duty as well
as penalty. This is trite law that if statutory authority has been
given some responsibility, in the statute, he has to act strictly in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
8/9
terms of the duty cast upon him in the statute and not otherwise.
The aforesaid principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 9 and in Opto Circuit
India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC
707. The Collector has abdicated his statutory duty and has not
determined the market value and the structure standing upon the
purchased land and merely on the inquiry report of Sub-
Registrar has held that the value disclosed by the petitioner of
the property in the sale deed was not correct and directed for
payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. As per section 47A
(1) of the Stamp Act, after registration of the sale
deed/document, the Sub-Registrar becomes functus officio and
the power to determine the value of the registered property vests
with the Collector under Section 47 A (3) of the Stamp Act. The
Collector, at his own level, can determine the market value of
such property and duty payable upon the same in accordance
with the procedure provided in sub-section (2) of Section 47 of
the Stamp Act.
13. Considering the aforesaid discussion upon facts as
well as on law, this court finds that the exercise of power by the
Collector based upon the determination of the value of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7055 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
9/9
property by a joint inquiry of Sub-Registrar is erroneous.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by
the Collector is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Collector to examine the correctness of the market value of the
property and structure himself which is the subject matter of the
instrument in question. The Collector may determine the market
value of the property of the document in question and duty
payable thereon in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Sub-Section (2) giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and all concerned. After remand, the Collector is directed to take
necessary steps in accordance with law within a period of three
months from today.
14. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the
present writ application is disposed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
U
Checking your session…