[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rama Prashan Dash vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 2407 of 2026
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Rama Prashan Dash ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. G.N.Parida, Advocate,
For Opp. Parties : Ms. J.Sahoo,
ASC for State
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
18th March, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the
following prayer:
It is therefore humbly prayed before your lordship to
admit this writ petition, issue rule NISI in the nature
of certiorari or any appropriate writ calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause as to why:
a. The order dt. 20.04.2016 in UVMC No. 50 of 2006
passed by the Addl. Sub-Collector vide Annexure-6
shall not be quashed.
b. The consequential Certificate case Vide C.C. No. 34
of 2017 pending before the Special Certificate Officer,
Bhubaneswar shall not be quashed;
And in the event the Opposite Parties fail to show
cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be
made absolute and the
(a) The order dt. 20.04.2016 in UVMC No. 50 of 2006
passed by the Addl Sub-Collector vide Annexure-6
be quashed
(b) The consequential Certificate case Vide C.C. No. 34
of 2017 pending before the Special Certificate
Officer, Bhubaneswar be quashed.
And may pass other order (s), direction(s) or grant
any other relief (s) as deemed fit and proper by
this Hon'ble Court.
And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner, as
in duty bound shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
petitioner purchased the land in question from one
Ramaballav Mishra vide RSD dated 25.11.2005. Though
the land in question was described in the schedule to the
sale deed, upon actual field inquiry, it was found that no
such land exists. In the meantime, the petitioner received
notice in under-valuation case being UVMC No. 50 of 2006
initiated by the Stamp Collector-Cum-Additional Sub-
Collector, Bhubaneswar under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act. The petitioner filed a detailed objection
specifically taking the stand that the transaction was a
bogus one. The Additional Sub-Collector, by order dated
20.11.2016, however held that the petitioner was knowingly
avoiding appearance in the case and valued the property as
suggested by the Registering Officer on the basis of sale of
similar Kisam of land. As such, he was asked to deposit the
deficit stamp duty and registration fees, in all amounting to
Rs. 18,018. Surprisingly, on the same date, i.e. 20.04.2016,
the following order was also passed:
"As per report submitted by the DSR, BBSR the suggested
land value comes to Rs. 156600/- on the basis of
preceding sale instances available in his record which is
found to be correct and justified. Hence, the value of the
document is determined at Rs 156600/- in which the
deficit stamp duty comes to Rs. 15246/- and the deficit
Regn. Fees comes to Rs. 2772/ totaling to Rs. 18018/-
which is recoverable from the case document and payable
by the O.P.
Hence institute a certificate case against the O.P. for
realisation of the deficit stamp duty Rs. 15246/ &
Registration fees of Rs. 2772/- (and interest as admissible)
as outstanding Govt. dues on him/her as arrear land
revenue under the provisions of the OPDR Act and Rules."
On such basis, the Certificate Case No. 34 of 2017 was
initiated against him by the Special Certificate Officer,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Heard Mr. G.N.Parida, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. J. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
4. Mr. Parida would submit that no notice of the
proceeding was ever served upon the petitioner. In any
case, the case having been heard on 20.04.2016 could not
have been posted to the same date again. Mr. Parida
further submits that the contentions regarding the bogus
nature of the transaction have not been considered at all by
the Stamp Collector.
5. Ms. Sahoo, learned ASC on the other hand, would
submit that the order sheet clearly shows that notices were
issued to the petitioner and in any case, the impugned
order was passed way back in the year 2016.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is firstly, of the view that though the impugned order
was passed on 20.04.2016 yet notice of the certificate case
having been issued on 03.11.2025, it cannot be said that
there was any delay in approaching this Court. This Court
has also perused the entire order sheet in the under
valuation case. It is surprising to note that on 20.04.2016,
two orders were passed. There is nothing on record to show
that notices are actually served on the petitioner. Even
otherwise, the contention raised by the petitioner in his
objection regarding bogus nature of the transaction has not
been considered at all. Moreover, the order being passed on
the same day, the Stamp Collector could not have held that
the appeal period was already over. Be it noted that as per
Section 45-A (3), 30 days period is allowed for filing appeal
against the order of the Stamp Collector before the District
Judge.
7. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court
is convinced that the impugned order cannot be sustained
in the eye of law. The writ application is therefore, allowed.
The impugned order passed in the Under Valuation case is
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar for hearing the Under Valuation case afresh
by granting proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
8. To cut short the delay, the petitioner shall appear
before the Stamp Collector on 31.03.2026 and produce
certified copy of this order, whereupon the date of hearing
shall be fixed. The case shall be finally disposed of by
passing a reasoned order considering the contentions
raised by the petitioner. As a consequence, notice issued in
the Certificate Case No. 34 of 2017 to the petitioner is also
quashed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
