The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18963 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Jagannath Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- The Collector, Khordha and another …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. T.K. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 14.08.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Letter No.9550 dated 16.05.2025(Annexure-1) issued by the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) through its Deputy Collector(Revenue). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on dated 12.07.2023, the petitioner executed a gift deed on the stamp papers worth of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty- four thousand two hundred) and presented the same before the Sub-registrar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) for its registration, but, the Opposite Party No.2 did not register the same and ultimately, advised the petitioner to seek for the refund of the un-utilized stamp duties worth of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred), on which, the gift deed was written approaching the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) for the same. 3. As per the advice of the Opposite Party No.2(Sub- registrar, Khordha), the petitioner applied before the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) through his son praying for refund of money, i.e., cash of Rs.1,44,200/- (rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) in respect of his un-utilized stamp duties. 4. As per Letter No.9550 dated 16.05.2025(Annexure-1), the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) intimated petitioner through his son Adhiraj Nayak rejecting his Page 2 of 9 application for the refund of cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred), instead of which, directed him(petitioner) to collect e-stamp certificate of same value of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) from its office showing his I.D. assigning the reasons that, “the application of the petitioner is not satisfying Section 53(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to get back(refund back) cash of Rs.1,44,200/- in respect of his unutilized(unused) stamp duties of his gift deed, but, he (petitioner) is directed to collect e-stamp certificate of same value.” 5. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Letter No.9550 dated 16.05.2025(Annexure-1) concerning the rejection of the application of the petitioner for the refund cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred), he (petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) and Sub-registrar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) praying for quashing the said Letter No.9550 dated 16.05.2025(Annexure-1) issued by the Collector, Page 3 of 9 Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) and to direct the Opposite Parties for the refund cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) in respect of his un- utilized stamp duties of the gift deed. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State(Opposite Parties). 7. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the present age of the petitioner is 90(ninety) years, who is extremely old, For which, it is obvious and natural that, the e-stamp certificate worth of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) in lieu of cash may not give any benefit to the petitioner, because, there is every possibility of non-utilization of such e-stamp certificate by him(petitioner) in future, as he(petitioner) is at the fag end of his life being extremely old having his present age as 90(ninety) years. Therefore, the direction given by the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) to the petitioner (who is aged about 90 years) through Annexure-1 to collect Page 4 of 9 e-stamp certificate of same value of his unutilized stamp duties in the gift deed is not practical, for the reasons that, when, the petitioner is entitled to refund back the value of his un-utilized stamp duties and the petitioner is an extremely old person having his present age as 90(ninety) years, then at this juncture, it was the duty of the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) to direct the petitioner to collect cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) from its office instead of directing him(petitioner) to collect the original e-stamp certificate of the same value taking into account to the impossibility on the part of the petitioner to use the said refunded e-stamp papers worth of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) in future, but, the Opposite Party No.1 has not done so. 8. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :- In a case between Committee GFIL vrs. Libra (i) Buildtech. Private Limited and others. : reported in (2015) 16 SCC-31 and in a case between Firm Kaluram Sitaram vrs. The Dominon of India : reported in AIR 1954 Bombay-50—That, when the State and its officers deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and if the State and its officers are satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just Page 5 of 9 one, in that case, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person. : reported In a case between Dr. Purnima Advani and (ii) another vrs. Government of NCT of Delhi and another in 2018 Civil Law Times- 202(Delhi)—When, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of stamp duty, in that case, denial of refund of money is un-lawful. Direction is given for the refund of money of Rs.28,10,000/-, which is the same value of the stamp duty. (iii) In a case between Harshit Harish Jain and another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in 2025(1) CCC-141 (S.C.)—That, refund of stamp duty denying a legitimate refund solely on the technical grounds of limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial determination. 9. When, in case of refund of e-stamp papers for the same value instead of cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) will be no practical use for the same in future by the petitioner due to his extreme old age and when, the above impugned order shall give no benefit to the petitioner, then at this juncture, it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 for passing an order for the refund of cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) to the petitioner, because, the non-use of the refunded e-stamp papers shall ultimately be an un-just enrichment of the State/Government. Page 6 of 9 10. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision :- (i) In a case between New India Industries Ltd. and another vrs. Union of India and another : reported in AIR 1990 Bombay-239(F.B.)—That, tax illegally levied must be refunded. The doctrine of unjust enrichment has to be applied after having regard to the facts of each case. 11. As per the discussions and observations made above, it is held that, the impugned order passed by the Collector, Khordha (Opposite Party No.1) through Annexure-1 directing the petitioner to collect e-stamp certificate of same value refusing his prayer for the refund of cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) is held as impractical and un-useful for the petitioner as well as society. 12. It is the settled propositions of law that, law is for the society, but, the society is not for the law. The law should merge with the needs of the society. Therefore, every orders or judgments are required be passed as per law, which shall be beneficial for the society. The orders or judgments, which are un-useful for the society, such types of orders should not be passed. Page 7 of 9 On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- In a case between M.S. Grewal vrs. Deep Chand Sood : reported in (2001) 8 SCC-151 that, Law Courts will lose their efficacy, if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the societies. Technicalities there might be many, but, the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality, because, technicality cannot and ought not to out-weigh the course of justice. 13. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the issuance of notice through Annexure-1 by the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) to the petitioner through his son Adhiraj Nayak directing him(petitioner) to collect e-stamp of the same value refusing his prayer to refund cash of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) has been held as impractical and non-beneficial to the society, then at this juncture, the said Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed. 14. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. Page 8 of 9 16. Letter No.9550 dated 16.05.2025(Annexure-1) issued by the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) refusing the prayer of the petitioner for refunding cash of Rs.1,44,200/- (rupees one lakh forty-four thousand two hundred) and directing him(petitioner) to collect the e-stamp certificate of the same value from its office is quashed. The Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1) is directed to refund of Rs.1,44,200/-(rupees one lakh forty- four thousand two hundred) in cash to the petitioner following proper procedures for its return within two weeks from the date of communication of this judgment to the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1). 17. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment immediately to the Collector, Khordha(Opposite Party No.1). 48. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
Decision
disposed of finally. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 07:26:49 Page 9 of 9