Sukhpal Kaur vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12645 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       W.P.(C) No.28893 of 2021
                        (Through hybrid mode)

        Sukhpal Kaur                           ....            Petitioner

                                             Mr. B.S.Tripathy, Advocate
                                     -versus-

        State of Odisha and others             ....      Opposite Parties
                              Mr.Y.S.P. Babu, Addl. Govt. Advocate
                       Mr.K.K.Mishra, Advocate (for O.P. nos.2 and 3)


                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                  ORDER

08.12.2021 Order No.

03. 1. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client had deposited Rs.54,180/- towards processing fee and GST (P.F. Rs.45,915/- + GST Rs.8,265/-), for execution by the Board (opposite party no.2) of conveyance in her favour in respect of allotment. Said opposite party by impugned letter dated 7th September, 2021 demanded processing fee of Rs.1,05,600/- and GST Rs.19,008/-, for necessary action. He submits, this was done on basis of bench mark valuation of the land as stated in impugned letter. He relies on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Santosh v. O.S.H.B., reported in 2020 (I) OLR-661, paragraphs 11 and 14. He seeks interference.

// 2 //

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Board and submits, the processing fee is required to be paid. He refers to office order dated 3rd October, 2018 issued by his client revising processing fee to be 15% of the prevailing bench mark valuation and applicable GST. Mr.Babu, learned advocate, Addl. Government Advocate appears on behalf of State (opposite party no.1)

3. In Santosh (supra) it was made clear that market value of property given meaning by rule 2(f)(ii) in Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952 is a value shown in the instrument when the maker is, inter alia, an authority incorporated by or under any law for the time being in force. Opposite party no.2 is undoubtedly covered by the provision in having put a value of the land allotted. It is bound to execute at that value and for that purpose may only obtain processing fees also on that value. Applicable Goods and Services tax is a percentage of the value. As such all authorities are covered by view taken in Santosh (supra) in obtaining revenue as a percentage on 'market value'.

4. Impugned letter is set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.2 will forthwith execute the document. Petitioner will pay processing fee assessed at 15% of the instrument value and applicable GST.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge RKS