VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the notice dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar, Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1998'), whereby an intimation of reference and payment of deficient stamp duty has been given to the petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar has registered a sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner by one Rajni Garg W/o Krishna Kumar Garg on 09.04.2015 in relation to 0.2600 hectare land situated in village Ganeshgarh, Tehsil Shadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar. Later on, the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar has issued notice to the petitioner under Section 54 of the Act of 1998, whereby the petitioner is asked to deposit the difference of the stamp duty paid by him in respect of the document registered on 09.04.2015 within an intimation that failing which the matter shall be referred to the Collector Stamps, Hanumangarh.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar once determined the market value of the property under Section 54 of the Act of 1998 at the time of registration of the document on 09.04.2015, therefore, now he is functus officio to issue notice (Annexure-2). Relying on the provisions of Rule 96 of Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was duty of the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar to verify the market value of the immoveable property at the time of registration and later on, he cannot again determine the market value and cannot ask for payment of stamp duty for the difference amount. It is also argued that the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar has no basis of calculating the market value of the property other then the market value on which the document has been registered on 09.04.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the impugned notice dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-2) the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar has not given any reasons, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.;