Patna High Court - Orders
Mamta Kumari & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 August, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9711 of 2013
======================================================
1. Mamta Kumari, W/O Vinay Kumar Anand, resident of C/O Shri S.N.
Prasad, Plot No. 295, Bari Co- operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City,
Pin Code- 827011, At Present Flat No. 205 B. Jagmano Shri Garden
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S- Rupaspur, District- Patna-14.
2. Smt. Anita Kumari, W/O Mr. Akhilesh Prasad, resident of Tata Nagar
Bigha, Post- Op, P.S- Akangar Sarai, District- Nalanda. At present-
Jagmano Shri Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S-
Rupaspur, District- Patna-14.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Sub Registrar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11701 of 2013
======================================================
1. Shri Virendra Prasad Verma, S/O Shri Brahmdev Prasad Verma,
resident of Hemzapur, Post- Shivkund P.S. Dhrahara, District-
Munger. At Present- Flat No. 405, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- B,
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur Disrict Patna.
2. Smt. Anupam Verma, W/O Shri Virendra Prasad Verma, resident of
Hemzapur, Post- Shivkund P.S. Dhrahara, District-Munger. At
present- Flat No. 405, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- B, Vednagar,
Rukanpura, Baily Road P.S. Rupaspur District- Patna.
3. Smt. Neelima Sahay, W/O Shri Satyendra Nath Lal, resident of
Quarter No. A/2, Old CID Colony L.B.S. Nagar, P.S. Shastri Nagar,
Patna. At present Flat No. 202, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block-B,
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road P.S. Rupaspur and District- Patna.
4. Smt. Anita Bahadur, W/O Shri Navin Kumar Ambasht, resident of
Prem Sadan, New Godown, P.S. Kotwali District Gaya, At Present-
Flat No. 302, Jagmao Shree Garden, Block-B Vednagar, Rukanpura,
Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur District- Patna.
5. Smt. Manorama Kumari, W/O Shri Dharamdev Singh, resident of
Grave, Post- Dibhiyari, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas (Sasaram). At
present Flat No. 301, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- B, Vednagar,
Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur, and District Patna.
6. Rajan Prasad, S/O Shri Jalendra Prasad, resident of Ramjee Chak,
Post- Bata Ganj, P.S. Digha, District Patna. At present Flat No. 103
Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- C, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road,
P.S. Rupaspur, and District Patna.
7. Smt. Anita Sinha, W/O Shri Pradeep Kumar.
8. Shri Pradeep Kumar, S/O Late Shyam Sundar Prasad, resident of
Sundar Sadan, Barh Railway Station, Post and P.S. Barh District
Patna. At present Flat No. 102, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- A,
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur, District Patna.
9. Smt. (Dr) Geeta Kumari, W/O Shri Pawan Kumar, resident of Shavitri
Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 2
Bhawan, Shiv Ganj, Ara P.S. Nawada (Ara). At present Flat No.303,
Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- B Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road,
P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Department of Registrations, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Sub Registrar, Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13962 of 2013
======================================================
1. Smt. Anita Upadhyay, W/o Shri Surendra Upadhyay, resident of
Ausaon, P.O. Kachhwa, P.S.- Gorari, District- Rohtas. At present Flat
No.401, Block-C, Jagmano Shree Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura,
Bailey Road, P.S. - Rupaspur, District- Patna.
2. Shri Krishna Prasad, S/o late Dushadhi Sah, resident of 2-A/1,
Godawari Apartment, Post- Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.- Rajeev Nagar,
District- Patna. At present- Flat No.401, Block-B, Jagmano Shri
Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S. Rupaspur, District-
Patna.
3. Chin Chin Kumar, S/o late Nathun Singh, resident of Basiyanva, P.O.-
Kalyanpur, P.S.- Pipra, District- Patna. At p[resent Flat No.402,
Block-C, Jagmano Shri Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road,
P.S.- Rupaspur, and district- Patna.
4. Shri Amarnath Jha, S/o Late Kishori Sharan Jha, resident of 32
Upendra Kishore Path, City Centre (Shail Kaup), Durgapur, District-
Vardhman. At present Flat No.403, Jagmano Shri Garden, Block-D,
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S. - Rupaspur, District- Patna.
5. Shri Shyam Bihari Sharma, S/o late Nanhku Sharma, resident of
Tejpura, Post- Baidarabad, P.S.- Rapur Chouram, District- Arwal. At
present Flat No.404, Jagmano Shri Garden, Block-D, Vednagar,
Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S. - Rupaspur, District- Patna.
6. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Anand Sharan Prasad, resident of
Sahay Hata, Premchand Path, Gaulakshni, Sasaram, District- Rohtas.
At present Flat No.102, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block-B, Vednagar,
Rukanpura, Bailey Road, P.S. Rupaspur, and District- Patna.
7. Shri Surendra Kumar, S/o late Ram Kewal Singh, resident of
Sabajpura, P.O. Jaipur, P.S. Menhdiya, District- Arwal. At present Flat
No.401, Jagmano Shree Garden, Block-F, Vednagar, Rukanpura,
Bailey Road, P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Department of Registrations, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Sub Registrar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 3
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14733 of 2013
======================================================
1. Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, S/O Late Shrawan Kumar Singh, resident of-
Saguna Morh, behind D.A.V. School, Baily Road, P.O. & P.S.
Danapur, District Patna, At present- Flat No. 404, Block-B, Jagmano
Shree Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur
District Patna.
2. Smt. Chandrakanti, W/O Kamleshwar Kumar, resident of Village-
Bhagwatipur, Post- Neura, P.S. Sahpur, District Patna. At present- Flat
No. 302, Block-D, Jagmano Shri Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily
Road, P.S. Rupaspur Dist. Patna.
3. Sanju Singh, W/O Shri Dinanath Singh, resident of- Khajpura, P.O.
B.V. College, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna. At present- Flat No.
102, Block-B, Jagmano Shri Garden, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily
Road, P.S. Rupaspur, Disrict Patna.
4. Shri Banshidhar Singh, S/O Late Gharshobhan Singh, resident of
Village- Harkhamal, P.O. Dhanbakhara P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas
(Sasaram). At present- Flat No. 205, Jagmano Shri Garden, Block- D,
Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur, District Patna.
5. Shri Subhash Chandra Chowla, S/O Late Girdhari Chawla, resident of
Chowla Fancy State, Panjabi Market, G.T. Road, P.S. Chouki No.2,
Distt. Rohtas (Sasaram). At present- Flat No. 204, Jagmano Shree
Garden, Block- C, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur
District Patna.
6. Shri Satish Kumar, S/O Shri Saroj Kumar Singh, resident of- Quarter
No. 2266, Post- Street No. 11, Sector 80, Bokaro Steel City, P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokari. At present- Flat No. 402, Jagmano Shree
Garden, Block- B, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, P.S. Rupaspur,
District- Patna.
7. Smt. Anuradha Singh, W/O Shri Pramod Singh, resident of- Garbhe,
P.O. Dibhiyan, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas. At present- Flat No. 305,
Jagmano Shree Garden, Block- C, Vednagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road,
P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Department of Registrations, Bihar, Patna
4. The District Sub Registrar, Patna .
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.9711 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Mira Kumari
Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary
Ms. Archana Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC.-27 with
Ms. Ruchika Kumari, AC to SC-27
(In CWJC No.11701 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Mira Kumari
Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 4
Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary
Ms. Archana Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, SC-23 with
Mr. Mithlesh Pd. Singh, AC to SC-23
(In CWJC No.13962 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Mira Kumari
Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary
Ms. Archana Kumari
For the Respondent/s : AC to AAG-2
(In CWJC No.14733 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s :
Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Mira Kumari
Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary
Ms. Archana Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
10 20-08-2014Heard Dr. Umashankar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel No.23 and Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.27 and other Assisting Counsel appearing for the State.
Since the matter in issue in all these writ petitions is the same hence they have been taken up together with a view to their final disposal at this stage itself with the consent of the parties.
For the sake of convenience I shall be referring to the pleadings made in CWJC No.9711 of 2013 and CWJC No.11701 of 2013 unless clarified by any specific reference to the other writ petitions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 5
The petitioners in the batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the various notices issued to them as impugned in their respective writ petitions requiring them to pay deficit stamp duty together with penalty at the rate of 10 per cent.
The individual details of the petitioners in the respective writ petitions are as follows:
Re: CWJC No.9711 of 2013:
There are two petitioners in this writ petition. Whereas the petitioner no.1 is the owner of Flat no.205, Block- B, the petitioner no.2 is the owner of Flat no.201, Block-B in Jagmano Shri Garden apartment situated at Bailey Road in the town and district of Patna having been developed by Jagmano Shri developers. The petitioners are aggrieved by notices which have been impugned at Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition requiring the petitioners to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,68,680/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,85,548/- in so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned and Rs.1,67,400/- by way of stamp duty together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,84,140/- in so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned.
Re: CWJC No.11701 of 2013:
There are nine petitioners in this writ petition and Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 6 they are owners of different flats in Jagmano Shri Garden Apartment situated at Bailey Road in the town and district of Patna having been developed by Jagmano Shri developers. and the individual details of the petitioners' flat numbers, deficit stamp duty together with the penalty imposed as per the notices impugned at Annexures 9 to 15 are as follows: (1) The petitioner nos.1 & 2 are the owners of Flat no.405, Block- B and they are aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-9 requiring them to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,68,680/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,85,548/- ; (2) Petitioner no.3 is the owner of Flat No.202, Block-B, and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-10 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,67,400/- together with 10% penalty.
the total amounting to Rs.1,84,140/-;
(3) Petitioner no.4 is the owner of Flat no.302, Block-B, and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-11 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,67,400/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,84,140/-;
(4) Petitioner no.5 is the owner of Flat no.301, Block-B, Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 7 and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-12 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,40,760/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,54,836/-;
(5) Petitioner no.6 is the owner of Flat no.103, Block-C and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-13 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,28,760/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,41,636/-;
(6) Petitioner nos.7 & 8 are the owners of Flat no.102, Block-A and they are aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-14 requiring them to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,48,640/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,63,504/-; and ( 7) Petitioner no.9 is the owner of Flat no.303, Block-D and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-15 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,55,640/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,71,204/-.
Re: CWJC No.13962 of 2013:
There are seven petitioners in this writ petition and they are owners of different flats in Jagmano Shri Garden Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 8 Apartment situated at Bailey Road in the town and district of Patna having been developed by Jagmano Shri developers. and the individual details of the petitioners' flat numbers, deficit stamp duty together with the penalty imposed as per the notices impugned at Annexures 8 to 14 are as follows:
(1) The petitioner nos.1 is the owners of Flat no.401, Block-
C and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-8 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,20,280/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,32,308/- ;
(2) Petitioner no.2 is the owner of Flat No.401, Block-B, and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-9 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,40,760/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,54,836/-;
(3) Petitioner no.3 is the owner of Flat no.402, Block-C, and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-10 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,54,880/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,70,368/-;
(4) Petitioner no.4 is the owner of Flat no.403, Block-D, and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 9 Annexure-11 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,30,040/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,43.044/-;
(5) Petitioner no.5 is the owner of Flat no.404, Block-D and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-12 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,19,560/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,31,516/-;
(6) Petitioner no.6 is the owner of Flat no.102, Block-F and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-13 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,48,520/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,63,372/-; and (7) Petitioner no.7 is the owner of Flat no.401, Block-F and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-14 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,12,880/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,24.168/-.
Re: CWJC No.14733 of 2013:
There are seven petitioners in this writ petition and they are owners of different flats in Jagmano Shri Garden Apartment situated at Bailey Road in the town and district of Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 10 Patna having been developed by Jagmano Shri developers. and the individual details of the petitioners' flat numbers, deficit stamp duty together with the penalty imposed as per the notices impugned at Annexures 8 to 14 are as follows:
(1) The petitioner no.1 is the owner of Flat no.404, Block- B and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-8 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,53,520/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,68,872/- ;
(2) Petitioner no.2 is the owner of Flat No.302, Block-D, and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-9 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,41,160/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,55,276/-;
(3) Petitioner no.3 is the owner of Flat no.102, Block-B, and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-10 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,67,400/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,84,140/-;
(4) Petitioner no.4 is the owner of Flat no.205, Block-D, and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-11 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 11 Rs.98.040/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,07,844/-;
(5) Petitioner no.5 is the owner of Flat no.204, Block-C and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-12 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,21,360/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,33,496/-;
(6) Petitioner no.6 is the owner of Flat no.402, Block-B and he is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-13 requiring him to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,40,760/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,54,836/-; and (7) Petitioner no.7 is the owner of Flat no.305, Block-C and she is aggrieved by the notice impugned at Annexure-14 requiring her to make payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,41,800/- together with 10% penalty, the total amounting to Rs.1,55,980/-.
It is a matter of record that the sale-deeds of these petitioners were duly registered by the authorities under the Registration Act in between 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. Owing to certain complaints made by one of the flat owner alleging irregularities by the developer in giving proper valuation of the Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 12 flats and charging them of under valuation thus causing loss of revenue to the State, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna in the capacity of Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') held an enquiry and was of the opinion that the developers had indulged in under valuing the apartments in the sale-deeds registered in favour of these petitioners and others. It is following such enquiry and on arriving at a conclusion regarding under valuation of the sale-deeds that a direction was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in the capacity of Collector under 'the Act' for recovery of the deficit stamp duty along with penalty as per the provisions underlying section 47A(3) of 'the Act'. The petitioners being aggrieved by such actions are before this Court.
Dr. Umashankar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised two issues to question the notices impugned in this batch of writ petitions issued under section 47A(iii) of 'the Act', namely:-
(a) The proceedings initiated by the Collector under section 47A(3) of 'the Act' was barred by law inasmuch as it was initiated beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of registration of Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 13 sale-deeds; and
(b) Even if it was assumed that the proceedings were initiated within the statutory period provided under section 47A (3) of 'the Act' but in absence of notice to the petitioners as mandated under the provisions of section 47A (2) of 'the Act' enabling them to stand in defence of the valuation and providing them an opportunity of participation in the process of determination of valuation, the proceedings can not be upheld.
The arguments on behalf of the State has been led by Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel No.23 and Mr. Kinkar Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.27 and seconded by the other counsel. Learned counsel in support of their submission that the proceedings in question were not barred by limitation provided under section 47A (3) of 'the Act' have referred to an enquiry report placed at Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit in CWJC No.11701 of 2013 and which is dated 12.1.2011 and bears the signature of Assistant Inspector General of Registration as well as the Deputy Secretary of the department. With reference to the said enquiry report it was contended that the enquiry was conducted pursuant Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 14 to complaints received containing allegations of under valuation of the flats some of which are owned by the present petitioners and was well within the period of two years and thus there is no issue of the proceedings being barred by law. It is contended by the learned State Counsel that following the enquiry on receipt of the complaint regarding under-valuation of the flats by the developers in question and finding substance in the allegations notices were issued to the developers, copies whereof have been placed at Annexure-B and C series to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.11701 of 2013 and whereafter the Assistant Inspector General of Registration exercising powers in the capacity of Collector under section 47A(3) of 'the Act' issued directions for recovery of the deficit stamp duty vide letter dated 22.6.2011 addressed to the District Sub-Registrar enclosing the list of the defaulters and which includes the present petitioners. A copy of the communication of the Assistant Inspector of Registration dated 22.6.2011 is placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.9711 of 2013. It is thus the contention of learned State Counsel that there is absolutely no infirmity in the proceedings initiated by the Collector under 'the Act' and the petitioners if aggrieved by the decision of the Collector on the issue of deficit stamp duty have Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 15 their remedy under section 47A (4) of 'the Act' by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division concerned which, in the present case, would be the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. It is thus submitted that the petitioners having an alternative and efficacious remedy available to them under the provisions of 'the Act', the orders impugned in these writ petitions require no interference.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.
Section 47A of 'the Act' was incorporated by the Bihar Finance Act 2008 with effect from 2.4.2008. Sub-section (1) of section 47A enables the registering authority of referring the matter to the Collector for determination of market value of property in case he has doubts about its valuation and upon such reference being made the Collector is empowered under sub- section (2) of section 47A to make such determination after giving opportunity to the parties of representing their cases. Section 47A(3) of 'the Act' vests power in the Collector to re- open any matter which has not already been referred to him in order to satisfy himself as to the correct valuation of the subject matter of the sale-deed. Thus it is in case where no reference is made by the registering authority to the Collector that he can Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 16 exercise such power suo-motu to re-open a matter for satisfying himself as regarding the market valuation of the subject matter of the sale-deeds. In so far as the present case is concerned, though such power has not been exercised suo-motu by the Collector and the foundation for such exercise is in the light of the complaint received in this regard from Kumar Sanjay Sahay but that would not be a bar for such exercise of power by the Collector. Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.11701 of 2013 clears all doubts that such power was exercised by the Collector within two years of the registration of the sale-deeds which are subject-matter of proceedings. Thus the exercise of power under section 47A (3) of 'the Act' is within the limitation period prescribed under 'the Act' and there is no dispute regarding the same.
Annexure-B and Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.11701 of 2013 no doubt are the notices issued to the developers and though Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned State Counsel tried to persuade this Court into believing that since the same developers by a different trade name of Jagmano developer has developed the property in question and thus notice to K.P. Developers would be sufficient notice to the petitioners but this Court would Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 17 not be in agreement for such submission. When the law provides notice to the parties for such determination it has to be in that manner alone. The notice in so far as the present cases are concerned would not satisfy the requirement of law. Admittedly the enquiry report placed at Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit refers to the construction made by Jagmano developers and that a decision has been taken by the Collector to re-determine the valuation but in none of writ petitions any document could be placed on record by the State Counsel to satisfy this Court regarding either any notice to the developers concerned nor they have been able to bring on record that any notice was issued to any of the writ petitioners.
The law is very clear on issue and even when section 47A(3) of 'the Act' vests power in the Collector to re- determine the valuation and which has to be done in the manner required under section 47A(2) of the Act and in no other manner. The legal position is clear from reading of the statutory provisions underlying section 47A (3) of 'the Act' itself. Section 47A(2) castes an obligation on the Collector to give one month time to the party concerned for making representation and it is only after hearing them and after making an enquiry in that regard that he has been vested with the power to re-determine Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 18 the market value of the property. There is nothing on record to support that the Collector had followed the procedure provided under section 47A (2) of 'the Act' before issuing directions to the District Sub-Registrar by letter dated 22.6.2011 placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in CWJC No.9711 of 2013 for recovery of the deficit stamp and which has resulted in the notices impugned in the writ petitions. There being clear infraction of statutory provisions, the direction contained in letter dated 22.6.2011 of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in the capacity of Collector discharging the duty of a Collector under section 47A(3) of' 'the Act' in so far as the present petitioners are concerned, is clearly illegal and unsustainable and for the same reason the consequential notices issued by the District Sub-Registrar impugned in the respective writ petitions also would become unsustainable.
For the reasons aforementioned the direction issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration as contained in the letter dated 22.6.2011 addressed to the District Sub- Registrar, Patna placed at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC N0.9711 of 2013 in so far as the petitioners are concerned as well as the consequential notices issued pursuant thereto and impugned in the respective writ petitions cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.9711 of 2013 (10) dt.20-08-2014 19 upheld and are accordingly set aside.
The writ petitions are allowed. This order would, however, not preclude the Collector under 'the Act' to proceed in accordance with law in the light of his finding recorded in the enquiry report dated 12.01.2011 placed at Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in CWJC No11701 of 2013.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U