M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16-2-2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar. Palamau in Impounding case No. 7/95-96 directing the executant of the deed to deposit a sum of Rs. 99.099/- being the deficit amount of stamp duty and fee.
(2.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass.
(3.) Respondent No. 5 Mostt. pan Kuer wife of Ram Lakhan Tiwary now deceased executed a deed of gift in favour of five sons of her brother-in-law and one grandson in respect of her 1/4th share in the joint family property. The deed of gift was presented before the Sub-Registrar Palamau and was duly registered on 21-5-1995. It is worth to mention here that the value of 1/4th share of her property gifted was shown as Rs. 45,000/- and requisite stamp and registration fee were paid by respondent No. 5. The petitioner's case is that all of a sudden the donees of the gift received a notice dated 15-5-2000 from the office of respondent No. 3, Additional Collector Stamp, Daltonganj in impounding case No. 7/ 95-96. It is contended by the petitioner that on inquiry it was found that in terms of order dated 29-6-1995 a notice was issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner and the donor, now deceased stating that the respondent No. 1 the Sub-Registrar by letter dated 21- 6-1995 referred the matter for recovery of the deficit fee under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act. Petitioner's case is that although a show cause was filed by the petitioner but without considering the show cause the Deputy Commissioner directed for recovery of shortage of fee in terms of order dated 16-2-2001.;