Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This writ application has been filed praying for issuance of an appropriate writ directing respondent No. 4, District Sub-Registrar, Koderma to register the sale-deed for the land situated in plot No. 470, Khata No. 292 measuring an area of 4 acres of village Gomoh, P.S. Telaiya, district-Koderma purported to be executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioner on a consideration of Rs. 5.51 lacs and further for a writ for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 1184 dated 26-7-97 whereby respondent No. 3, Officer-in-charge, District Revenue Deptt. Koderma fixed the valuation of the property to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs 20,000.00 under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder. 2. Petitioners case is that it is a trust and registered society having its branches throughout India and is engaged in providing education to the people of India. The petitioner-society, with a view to expand its educational institutions, entered into an agreement with respondent No. 5 for the purchase of the aforementioned property on a consideration of Rs. 5.51 lacs and pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 51,000/ - as an advance to respondent No. 5. Pursuant to the agreement respondent No. 5 filed an application on 5-6-96 before respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for grant of permission under Sec. 49-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (shortly the said Act). It is stated by the petitioner that the entire formalities were completed on 7-8-96 for grant of permission under Sec. 49-A of the said Act but respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner kept the matter pending for finalisation of rate and issued a letter to the District Sub-Registrar, respondent No. 4 to evaluate the rate of the property in question. Pursuant to the direction of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 4 made a spot inquiry and on thorough inspection as well as on taking into consideration the prevailing market value of the land, came to a finding that the real market value of the property will be at Rs. 5.75 lacs. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 submitted a report vide his letter No. 152 dated 25-2-97. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. 5.75 lacs. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 submitted a report vide his letter No. 152 dated 25-2-97. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 2, without taking into consideration the report submitted by respondent No. 4, has fixed the valuation for the purpose of registration of the sale-deed at Rs. 16,20,000.00 on the basis of the valuation fixed in the year, 1991 which was already quashed by this Court. It is stated that respondent No. 5 had filed an application before respondent No. 2 on 12-3-97 for reconsideration of the valuation of the land in question. It is stated that respondent No. 5 has already executed several sale-deeds in favour of different persons in respect of other parts of the said land at the price of Rs. 427.00 per decimal but respondent No. 2 permitted her to execute the sale-deed only at the price of Rs. 4,052.00 per decimal. The application for reconsideration filed by respondent No. 5 was, however, rejected by respondent No. 2 and granted permission to execute sale-deed at the price of Rs. 16,20,000.00 . Petitioners case is that at the relevant time the adjoining lands were being transferred at the price of Rs. 400 to 450 per decimal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, it is, inter alia, stated that the respondent No. 5 cannot be entitled to sell the property at the price of Rs. 5.51 lacs as the market value of the village Gomoh was under fixation which is within the knowledge of respondent No. 2. It is further stated that steps were being taken by the answering respondent in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of the Bihar Instrument Valuation Act, 1995 and Sec. 49 of the C.N.T. Act. 4. I have heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sahay, learned Government Advocate, perused the writ application and the counter-affidavit. 5. The admitted facts are that respondent No. 5 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question at a price of Rs. 5.75 lacs and necessary application was filed for grant of permission under Sec. 49-A of the said Act. A. Sahay, learned Government Advocate, perused the writ application and the counter-affidavit. 5. The admitted facts are that respondent No. 5 entered into an agreement to sell the land in question at a price of Rs. 5.75 lacs and necessary application was filed for grant of permission under Sec. 49-A of the said Act. The respondent-authority granted permission for the sale of the land in question not on a consideration of Rs. 5.75 lacs but on a consideration of Rs. 16.20 lacs which is said to be the valuation fixed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. Nowhere, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that before granting permission to respondent No. 5 to sell the lands only at the price of Rs. 16.20 lacs, respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 has ever given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or respondent No. 5 nor notice to show cause was issued as to why the market value of the land in question should not be fixed at Rs. 16.20 lacs. On this ground alone, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in law. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 26-7-97 passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order determining the market value of the land in question after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.