Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 31324 OF 2023
Ashok Kumar Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. Sambit Kar, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.10.2023
1. 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 27th December, 2019 (Annexure-2) in respect of
core house, i.e., MIG-89, Phase-I, Pokhariput, BDA,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that pursuant to advertisement floated by Bhubaneswar
Development Authority (BDA), Petitioner applied for a core
house on lease-cum-sale basis. Pursuant to an agreement entered
into, the Petitioner was delivered with possession of the said
core house in the year 2004. 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
27th December, 2019. However, the registering authority has
levied stamp duty/registration fee on the said deed for
registration as per the bench mark/market value of the property
prevailing on the date of registration of the deed in question.
// 2 //
3.1 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner made a representation to
the Inspector of General, Registration, Odisha, Cuttack (IGR)
dated 11th September, 2023 under Annexure-4 for consideration
of levying Stamp Duty/registration fee, as aforesaid, but no
action has yet been taken on the same. 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, 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 this petitioner, the Registering
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
direction in future registration of this nature at least to
avoid flowing of such cases to this Court.
Free copy of this order be supplied to
Mr.S.Ghosh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State for communication to the IGR of the State."
3.2 It is his submission that pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, as quoted above, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
// 3 //
Cuttack, vide its letter No.5921 dated 1st December, 2021
(Annexure-4), 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 (Annexure-3) as well as letter
dated 1st December, 2021 of Board of Revenue (Annexure-4),
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.2 to take a decision on the representation of the
Petitioner dated 11th September, 2023 under Annexure-4 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 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
// 4 //
duty/registration fee, if any, collected from the Petitioner at the
time of registration of Lease-cum-Sale Deed dated 27th
December, 2019, shall also be refunded to him within a period
of four weeks thereafter.
6. As requested, a copy of this order be handed over to Mr.
Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
communication and compliance.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
bks Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-Oct-2023 10:56:44
