IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.04 of 2007 Smt. Kiran Singh, wife of Sri Deepak Singh, resident of Village- Mirzapur, P.O. & P.S. Rajnagar, District- Madhubani. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Madhubani. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 3. The District Sub-Registrar, Madhubani. . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, AC to SC 20 ----------- 2/ 20.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2005 passed by Collector, Madhubani in Stamp case no. 04 of 2003- 04, whereby he had directed the petitioner to deposit the stamp duty of Rs. 42,000/- within one month, failing which the same would be recovered as public demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had purchased one Katha and 19 dhurs of land on 16.05.2003 from one Satya Narayan Dhirasaria and three others for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs) pertaining to old khata no.182, old khesara no.1451, new khata no.487 and new khesara no.1946 situated in mauza Satghrah under thana no.197, Tauzi no.558, Jamabandi no. 317, 710, and 820 in Madhubani township. Learned counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that the land in question is Dih Basgit. He further submits that the valuation of the land as per guideline of the Government would be Rs.1,00,000/- per katha. He had purchased one katha and 19 dhurs for Rs.2,00,000/- on which he 2 has paid the leviable stamp duty of Rs.16,800/-. He further submits that there is no dispute to the assertion of the petitioner that the valuation of the land in the aforesaid locality would be Rs. 1,00,000/- per katha. He submits that the District Sub- Registrar has wrongly raised the valuation of the land on the ground that there are rooms and structure thereon. He further submits that he had purchased vacant land and no house existed on it. Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the report of the District Sub-Registrar, the purchased land comprised of a number of rooms and a school also runs in the said premises. On the aforesaid factual basis the valuation of the land was fixed by the Collector on the report of the Registering Officer and on which stamp duty of Rs. 42,000/- was payable. In my view, if petitioner files a representation, the Collector, Madhubani would make an enquiry whether the land in question had rooms at the time of purchase of land. In case, the report of the District Registering Officer is correct then the amount of stamp duty levied by the Collector cannot be faulted. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)