IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7782 of 2006 Islamia Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Siwan at M.M. Nagar Colony, P.O. and P.S. Siwan, District- Siwan, through its Secretary, Ansari Amin Nourani, resident of village- Naya Kila Nawalpur, P.O. and P.S. Siwan, District Siwan … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner, Saran at Chapra, District – Saran 3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Collector, Siwan, District- Siwan 5. District Sub-Registrar, Siwan, District- Siwan.. … … Respondents For the petitioner : M/s Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.P. Kishore, AC to SC-7. ----------- 02/ 21.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Registration Appeal No. 112/ 2005-06 whereunder he has allowed the appeal preferred against the order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3 passed by the Collector, Siwan in Case No. 1 of 2002 whereunder the valuation of the lands i.e. the subject matter of the 18 sale deeds i.e. 13 bighas of land was enhanced to ` 2500/-, 4500/-. The valuation of 12 kathas of land was enhanced to ` 4500/- and of 2 the remaining lands to ` 2500/-. Against the aforesaid order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3, the vendee preferred appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, Saran vide Registration Appeal Nos. 70-87 of 2002-03 and 21-27 of 2003-04, which were dismissed under orders dated 16.3.2004, Annexure-4. After dismissal of the aforesaid appeals, the vendee furnished the deficit stamp in compliance of the order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3 and 18 sale deeds were registered. 3. From perusal of the order dated 16.3.2004, Annexure-4, it appears that in the appeal, the State of Bihar, the Collector and Sub-Registrar, Siwan were represented by the Government Pleader, Siwan. Much after registration of the 18 sale deeds in the light of the valuation fixed under order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3, the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Bihar filed Registration Appeal No. 112 of 2005-06 assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3 on the ground that the valuation of the lands in question fixed by the Collector under order dated 26.12.2002 was also below the actual market value of those lands. Aforesaid Appeal No. 112 3 of 2005-06 has been allowed under order dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 and the valuation of the lands in question fixed under order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3 has been further enhanced. 4. Aforesaid order dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 is being challenged in this writ petition on three grounds – (i) The State of Bihar having been impleaded as respondent no.1 in Registration Appeal No. 70 of 2002-03 and heard through Government Pleader, Siwan Assistant Inspector General could not have maintained Registration Appeal No.112 of 2005- 06 as the said appeal shall tantamount to be a second appeal filed against order dated 26.12.2002 or petition for review of order dated 16.3.2004 which is not permissible under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Another ground of challenge raised against the filing of Registration Appeal No. 112 of 2005-06 and the order dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 is that the submissions which have been raised on behalf of the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Bihar in Registration Appeal No. 112 of 2005-06 should have been raised on 4 behalf of the State-respondents in the earlier Registration Appeal No.70 of 2002-03, State respondent having not raised such submission in the earlier appeal such submission cannot be entertained in the subsequent appeal filed by the functionary of the State, as such submissions are barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. The third submission, which is being raised in support of this writ petition is that one Registration Appeal No. 112 of 2005-06 filed against the order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3 is not competent as under order dated 26.12.2002, the Collector, Siwan disposed of 18 reference case(s) made by the Sub-Registrar and until 17 other appeals were filed challenging the same order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3, Registration Appeal No. 112 of 2005-06 should have been held as incompetent. 5. Aforesaid three submissions have been refuted by the counsel for the State, with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-Section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, which inter alia, empower any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Sub- Section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act may file appeal 5 against the said order before the Commissioner concerned. By order dated 26.12.2002, Annexure-3, the vendee was aggrieved and he preferred 18 appeals, bearing Nos. 70-87 of 2002-03 and 21-27 of 2003-04, which were disposed of under orders dated 16.3.2004, Annexure-4 after hearing the State of Bihar and the Collector as also the Sub-Registrar, Siwan. At the stage when order dated 16.3.2004, Annexure-4 was passed, the State and its functionaries i.e. the Collector and the Sub-Registrar, Siwan were heard and the grounds which have been taken in support of the subsequent appeal could not have been taken in support of the subsequent appeal by the Assistant Inspector General as the Assistant Inspector general was not aware about the fact that even Collector, Siwan has fixed the valuation of the lands in question under order dated 26.12.2002 grossly below the market value. There is nothing on record to suggest that Assistant Inspector General was aware of the order dated 26.12.2002 and the pendency of the Appeal Nos.70-87 of 2002-03 and 21-27 of 2003-04 filed against the said order before the Commissioner, Saran Division (including the fact that 6 State of Bihar was respondent no.1 in those appeals) prior to their disposal under order dated 16.3.2004. State respondent being not aware of the aforesaid appeal(s) proceeding taken in the said appeal is not binding on the State. While appearing in those appeals it was incumbent upon the Government Pleader, Siwan to have sought instructions from the Inspector General, Registration as it was only the Inspector General, Registration who could have furnished instructions on behalf of the State in the aforesaid appeal(s). Submission that the finding recorded while disposing of the appeal(s) under order dated 16.3.2004 shall act as resjudicata is also misconceived and shall have no bearing in the matter, as order dated 16.3.2004 has been recorded without notice to the Inspector General, Registration, Bihar. 6. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that technically it is right that one appeal filed by the Inspector General, Registration against the order dated 26.12.2002 could not have been competent as by passing order dated 26.12.2002, 18 reference case(s) were disposed of by the Collector and 7 technically 17 other analogous appeals should also have been filed while filing Registration Appeal No.112 of 2005-06. Learned counsel for the State then submitted that procedural error of not filing the 17 appeal should not come in the way of the Inspector General, Registration to take remedial measures for recovery of the deficit court fee stamp liable to be paid on the correct valuation of land which was not even assessed by the Collector, Siwan while passing order dated 26.12.2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that Collector, Siwan passed order dated 26.12.2002 under Sub-Section-(2) of Section 47- A against which no appeal is maintainable under Sub- Section-(4) of Section 47-A of the Act and the earlier appeal as also the subsequent appeals were not maintainable, as bare perusal of Sub-Section-(4) of Section 47-A would indicate that any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Sub-Section-(2), (3) of Section 47-A may file appeal before the Commissioner concerned. In the present case order dated 26.12.2002 having been passed on receipt of 8 reference under Sub-Section-(1) of Section 47-A appeal against the same could not have been filed before the Commissioner. Reference made by the registering officer under Sub-Section(1) of Section 47 is disposed of by the Collector under Sub-Section(2) of Section 47 of the Act. Sub-Section-(4) of Section 47-A is the provision whereunder appeal is filed by the aggrieved person against the order passed by the Collector under Sub-Section-(2) and (3) of Section 47- A. Sub-Section-(3) of Section 47-A is the suo motu power of the Collector to call for any instrument for satisfying himself as to correction of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the instrument in question. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the order dated 26.12.2002 may be passed by the Collector, Siwan on the basis of reference received from the Sub-Registrar but the person aggrieved by the said order can always avail the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, Saran. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the Inspector 9 General/Assistant Inspector General, Registration having not been aware of the earlier proceeding taken by the Collector, Siwan pursuant to the reference received is not bound by the findings recorded in the order disposing of the earlier appeal as the said appeal was taken by the vendee, although the State of Bihar was respondent in the said appeal but no information about the pendency of the said appeal before the Commissioner was ever given to the Inspector /Assistant Inspector General Registration, in my opinion, therefore the Inspector/Assistant Inspector General is not bound by the findings recorded in the earlier order dated 16.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Saran, as there is nothing on record of the writ petition or the counter affidavit that any information about earlier Appeal No.70 of 2002-03 was ever given to the Inspector /Assistant Inspector General Registration. They having not been aware of the said appeal, in my opinion, are not bound by the findings recorded while disposing of the said appeal. Later when they learnt about the order dated 26.12.2002 whereunder even the Collector of the district also fixed 10 the valuation of the lands in question grossly below the market value, in my opinion; Assistant Inspector General rightly challenged the said appeal before the Commissioner, Saran Division by filing appeal. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the subsequent order dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division in Registration Appeal No.112 of 2005-06. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/Rajesh ( V. N. Sinha, J.)