[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India) vs State Of Odisha on 15 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23333 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Bansidhar Panigrahi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented through .... Opposite Parties
its Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Bhubaneswar, Khurda
and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. G.N. Parida,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mrs. J. Sahoo,
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 07.01.2026 / date of judgment : 15.01.2026
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
impugned order dated 05.07.2025(Annexure-13) passed in UV Case
No.25 of 2011 by the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of
Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) as well as letter dated
11.07.2025(Annexure-16) issued by the said Stamp Collector-cum-IGR,
Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and to direct
the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the registered sale deed
No.2596 dated 25.02.2009 executed in favour of the petitioner by
Kishore Chandra Rout, Dushasan Rout and Muralidhar Rout.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, the sale deed No.2596 dated
25.02.2009 was executed and registered by Kishore Chandra Rout,
Dushasan Rout and Muralidhar Rout in favour of the petitioner, but, that
said Sale Deed No.2596 was impounded on the ground of under
valuation. For which, an Under Valuation Case(UV Case) No.25 of 2011
was initiated and in the said Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, the
Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite
Party No.2) as per notice dated 25.01.2024 directed to the petitioner for
depositing the deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.38,25,000/-(rupees thirty-eight
lakhs twenty-five thousand) and Registration Fees of Rs.15,30,000/-
(rupees fifteen lakhs thirty thousand) in total Rs.53,55,000/-(rupees fifty-
three lakhs fifty-five thousand) within seven days. The petitioner
deposited Rs.38,25,000/-(rupees thirty-eight lakhs twenty-five thousand)
towards deficit Stamp Duty and Rs.15,30,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs thirty
thousand) towards registration fee in the month of June, 2025.
For which, as per order dated 05.07.2025 passed in the said Under
Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha,
Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) directed the petitioner
for payment of penalty @ 12.5% per annum on the deficient Stamp Duty
and Registration Fees, i.e., Rs.73,63,125/-(rupees seventy-three lakhs
sixty-three thousand one hundred twenty-five) on the ground of delay in
depositing the above assessed deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee
and issued a letter vide Letter No.3522 dated 11.07.2025(Annexure-16)
directing the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid penalty amount, i.e.,
Rs.73,63,125/-(rupees seventy-three lakhs sixty-three thousand one
hundred twenty-five) without releasing the registered Sale Deed No.2596
dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the order
dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in Under Valuation Case No.25
of 2011 as well as Letter No.3522 dated 11.07.2025(Annexure-16) and to
direct the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the Registered Sale Deed
No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner did not argue/press the prayer for quashing the
impugned order dated 05.07.2025(Annexure-13) passed by the Stamp
Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party
No.2) in Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, but, argued in support of
his prayer for directing the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of
Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for returning the Registered Sale
Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) contending that, retention
of the said sale deed on the ground of non-payment of penalty for delay
in payment of the arrear Stamp Duty and Registration Fees is contrary to
law. According to him, it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.2 for
returning the sale deed immediately after registration in view of the
provisions of law envisaged in Section 61 of the Indian Registration Act,
1908 and Rule-100 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 read with
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The law relating to the release of a registered sale deed in spite of
initiation of Under Valuation Case like this matter at hand has already
been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Harshpriya Construction(P) Ltd. vrs. The
Inspector General of Registration and others : reported in 2010(I)
OLR-760 that, neither the Registering Officer nor the Indian Stamp
Collector in exercising jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Stamp
Act, 1899 is legally entitled to retain possession of the
instrument(sale deed) of the petitioner after its registration. They are
legally obliged to return the same.
Because, the dispute in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899(Orissa Amendment) Act under Section 47-A does not
speak of the reference of the instrument itself to the Stamp Collector,
on the other hand, it is obligatory on the part of the Registering
Officer as per the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 to return the registered instrument. The
provisions of the Rules cannot over-ride the provision of the Act.
(ii) In a case between Kukumina Constructions(P) Ltd. vrs.
Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda and others : reported
in 2010(II) OLR(D.B.)-19 that, Registering Officer is not justified to
withhold the original document after registration of the same and
issue the notice without payment of deficient Stamp Duty and
Registration Fees.
(iii) In a case between Kukumina Constructions(P) Ltd. vrs.
Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda and others : reported
in 2010(II) OLR(D.B.)-19 that, an obligation is cast upon the
Registering Officer make every endeavour to return the document
promptly after the same is registered. He cannot withhold any
document after the same is registered for any other purposes. If upon
inspection or otherwise, it is found that, the fee payable under the
Registration Act in relation to any document, which is already
registered has not been paid, such fee may be recovered from the
person, who presented the said document for registration as an arrear
of land revenue.
(iv) In a case between Veena Hasmukh Jain and another vrs.
State of Maharashtra and others : reported in (1999) 5 SCC-725
and in a case between Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal and
another vrs. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil and others : reported in
(2024) 10 SCC-324 that, Stamp Duty is levied only on the document
and not on registration.
5. When, the propositions of law in respect of releasing the sale deed
after completion of registration has already been clarified in the ratio of
aforesaid decisions that, it is the duty and obligation of the Registering
Officer to make every endeavour for releasing the sale deed promptly
after its registration, but, the Registering Authority cannot withhold any
document(deed) after its registration for any other purpose, because, if
upon inspection or otherwise, it is found that, the required fees under the
Registration Act in relation to any document including Stamp Duty and
Registration Fees has not been paid, then, the same may be recovered as
an arrear of land revenue, then at this juncture, the Stamp Collector-cum-
IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) should
not have withhold the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated
25.02.2009(Annexure-1) from its releasing on the ground of delay in
payment of the arrear Stamp Duty and Registration Fees as well as
penalty for the same. For which, the prayer of the petitioner for a
direction to the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the Registered Sale Deed
No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) to the petitioner cannot be
disallowed.
6. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed
in part.
7. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
The Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) is directed for releasing the Registered
Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) to the properly
authorized person within a period of seven days from the date of
communication of this judgment.
8. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment to
the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and the District Sub-registrar, Ganjam
(Opposite Party No.8) immediately.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th of January, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
