IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12326 of 2004 1. BIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE SURAJ SINGH, VILLAGE MAHADALI CHAK, P.O. GOPALPUR, P.S. NAYAGAON, DISTRICT SARAN. 2. DHARAMNATH SINGH SON OF LATE SURAJ SINGH, VILLAGE MAHADALICHAK, P.O. GOPALPUR, P.S. NAYAGAON, DISTRICT SARAN. 3. MOST. SARASWATI KUER WIFE OF LATE DWARIKA SINGH OF VILLAGE MAHADALICHAK, P.O. GOPALPUR, P.S. NAYAGAON, DISTRICT SARAN. – PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN, CHAPRA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN, CHAPRA. 5. SUB-REGISTRAR, MASARAK, CHAPRA. 6. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE CHANDRAKET SINGH OF VILLAGE BHATWARA, P.O. GAWANDARI, P.S. TARAIYA DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA – RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4/ 15-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity and legality of order dated 29.09.2000 passed in Stamp Case No. 1 of 1994 by respondent District Collector, Saran (Annexure-1), as also the appellate order dated 01.06.2004 passed in Stamp Appeal No. 58 of 2000-2001 by respondent Divisional Commissioner, Saran (Annexure-2). 3. From the materials available on record and on the basis of submission made by learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the parties, it is apparent that on 12.01.1994 one Most. Janki Kuer executed six deeds of gift 2 in favour of the petitioners before learned Sub-Registrar, Masrakh, Saran. Total area of land transferred by those six deeds of gift was 4 bighas, 6 kathas and 15 dhoors. Valuation of the property in those deeds of gift has been shown to be Rs. 1,14,000/- only, i.e., @ Rs. 1,114/- per katha. 4. Respondent District Collector in exercise of his powers under section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, inserted by Bihar Act No. 15 of 1998, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, passed the impugned order, re- determining the value of the property in question @ Rs. 3,958/- per katha and, accordingly, the petitioners have been directed to make payment of deficit stamp duty. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed upon the petitioners in terms of section 64 of the Act for defrauding the Government. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned original order, preferred Stamp Appeal No. 48 of 2000-2001 in terms of section 47A(4) of the Act, which was finally heard and dismissed by the respondent Commissioner by the impugned appellate order dated 01.06.2004. 6. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel 3 appearing on behalf of the petitioners have not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the orders passed by the original authority as also the appellate authority. He simply submitted that factual aspect has not been considered in proper perspective by the authorities concerned. 7. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, this Court finds that even factual aspects regarding valuation of the property in question has been gone into and decided by the respondent District Collector. A detailed counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents in support of the orders passed by the authorities concerned. 8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the orders impugned. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)