The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-May-2024 14:33:33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 8820 OF 2024 Surath Kumar Mallick Petitioner Mr. Bighnaraj Rath, Advocate …. -versus- State of Odisha and others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opp. Parties Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Opp. Party Nos.1, 3 & 4) Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2-BDA) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 29.04.2024 5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to levy of stamp duty for registration of deed of lease- cum-sale dated 17th April, 2019 (Annexure-2) in respect of Plot No.218, Prachi Enclave, Phase-II, Chandrasekharpur under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khurda. 3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement floated by Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), Petitioner applied for a Plot on lease-cum-sale basis. Pursuant to an agreement entered into, the Petitioner was delivered with possession of the said plot in the year 2019. Since then, the Petitioner is residing therein by completing construction of the house. After much persuasion, a deed of lease-cum-sale was executed between BDA and Petitioner and the same was registered on 17th April, 2019. However, the registering authority has levied stamp duty/registration fee on the said deed for registration as per the Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-May-2024 14:33:33 // 2 // bench mark/market value of the property prevailing on the date of registration of the deed in question. 3.1 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner made a representation to the Inspector of General, Registration, Odisha, Cuttack (IGR) for consideration of levying Stamp Duty/registration fee, as aforesaid, but the same was rejected on the ground that since the deed was registered before 21st October, 2019, the Petitioner was intimated to take shelter in the proper Court of law for redressal of his grievances, if so advised. In view of the above, the Petitioner finding no other alternative has filed this writ petition to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to refund differential stamp duty/registration fee charged at the time of registration of the property. It is his submission that law is no more res integra on the issue, as this Court, vide order dated 31st March, 2021, passed in W.P.(C) No.8942 of 2021 (Smt. Amita Rout –v- Odisha State Housing Board and others), held as under:- “It is keeping all the above in view, this Court finds that stamp duty involving the registration of instrument based on lease-cum-sale deed entered into the parties at a particular rate and particular time will be the value for the registration purpose. It is in the circumstance, this Court in disposal of the Writ Petition while reiterating the settled position of law through the above judgment directs the opposite party ns.1 and 2 in the event the instrument is placed for registration by the Registering this petitioner, Authority shall register the same on the face value of the lease-cum-sale deed involved herein by accepting the stamp duty on the value as indicated therein by completing the entire exercise within a period of seven days. For number of cases coming to this Court on this aspect, the IGR of the State is directed to issue necessary communication to all the Registrars and Sub-Registrars of the State to follow the above Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-May-2024 14:33:33 // 3 // direction in future registration of this nature at least to avoid flowing of such cases to this Court. Free copy of to Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State for communication to the IGR of the State.” this order be supplied 3.2 It is his submission that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, as quoted above, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, vide its letter No.5921 dated 1st December, 2021 issued instructions to the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar to levy stamp duty as per the bench mark value in respect of the plot prevalent at the time of handing over possession. In spite of the same, the IGR has failed to consider the representation of the Petitioner and issue necessary directions for refund the differential stamp duty/registration fee. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been answered in W.P.(C) No. 8942 of 2021, which was disposed of on 31st March, 2021 as well as letter dated 1st December, 2021 of Board of Revenue, this Court feels that no fruitful purpose will be served awaiting response from the Opposite Parties. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the Petitioner should be considered in the light of the said direction and instruction respectively. 5. In view of the above, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the IGR, Odisha, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision on the representation of the Petitioner stated to have been filed as per the ratio decided in the case of Pradip Kumar Prusty Vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.35140 of 2022 disposed of on 8th February, 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-May-2024 14:33:33 // 4 // period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the result thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. Excess stamp duty/registration fee, if any, collected from the Petitioner at the time of registration of Lease-cum-Sale Deed dated 17th April, 2019, shall also be refunded to him within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. As requested, a copy of this order shall be made over to Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for communication and compliance. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. rojalin (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4