of the Act, 1899, after registration of the sale deed, thus the order dated 26.08.2022, passed by the respondent No.3, in Stamp Case No.31 of 2022, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.42,78,350/- on the head of deficit stamp duty, is perverse, illegal and contrary to law, hence the learned Court of Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, while passing the impugned order dated 17.11.2023, ought to have simply quashed the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2022, passed by the respondent no.3 and should have refrained from referring the matter to the Collector, Araria, since there is no such provision under the Act, 1899. Moreover, the present case is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tera Devi (supra) as also by a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shahnaj Bega m (supra). Therefore, this court finds that the action of the respondent no.5 as also that of the respondent no.3 and that of the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea is not only arbitrary and perverse but also against the mandate of Section 47-A of the Act, 1899, hence the order dated 17.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, in Stamp Appeal No.247 of 2022 is set aside and the respondents are debarred from proceeding any further in
