M/S Raipur Stone Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2025:CGHC:44720

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2279 of 2025

¶6

1- M/s Raipur Stone Clinic Pvt. Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 2013 Having Its Registered Office At 103, Rajiv Gandhi Complex, Balashram Compound, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Director, Dr. Tanmay Agrawal, S/o Dr. Kamleshwar Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-18, Ravi Nagar, Near Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Dr. Tanmay Agrawal S/o Dr. Kamleshwar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o B-18, Ravi Nagar, Near Shyam Plaza, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Collector of Stamps Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Collector Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Additional Tahsildar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Viabhav Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶17

ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed byASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.18 17:37:12 +0530

2 / 7

Order on Board

02/09/2025

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶22

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs through the instant petition:-

¶23

a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for records pertaining to case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court, if deem fit.

¶24

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities competent in this regard/ Respondent No.3 Collector to execute a lease deed in respect of the said land in favour of the Petitioners after encashing the cheque dated 18.03.2025 of Rs.1,08,09,509/- drawn on HDFC Bank already submitted with them along with the letter dated 18.03.2025 or a fresh cheque in this regard as per the calculation made by the Competent authority within the time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice,

¶25

OR,

¶26

A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the Respondent authorities to take into consideration market value as determined by Senior SubRegistrar, Raipur at Rs.1,08,09,509/-, and accordingly, applying the clause 35 of Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, fresh valuation be made and after following the procedure in this regard, a further direction be issued of executing and registering the lease deed in favour of the Petitioner for the requisite period within the time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶27

c. Cost of the proceedings.

¶28

d. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.

¶29

3 / 7

¶30

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn and challenge the act of Respondent No. 3 Collector and effect of which is non-registration of the document i.e. lease deed in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the land so as to establish Charitable Super Specialty Hospital on an early date.

¶31

The briefly stated facts of this case are that by order dated 15.09.2023, the Respondent No. 1 State Authority has allotted a plot of land bearing khasra no. 1223/8 admeasuring area 0.332 Hectare in accordance with the guidelines contained in Revenue Book Circular Part 4 paragraph 26 at concessional rate of 75% of the premium and rent etc. for establishment of the Super Specialty Hospital over the said land to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioners have received a demand note dated 05.01.2024 by which certain calculations have been made and the Respondent No. 4 Naib Tahsildar, Raipur has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,62,43,750/-from the Petitioners. Thereafter the Petitioners have sent a letter dated 07.03.2024 and brought into the notice of the Respondent No. 4 Tahsildar discrepancies in their demand and asked for amended demand note in accordance with law. Thereafter it appears that the Respondent No. 3 Collector vide letter dated 19.06.2024 has asked for guidance from Respondent No. 1 and by letter dated 01.10.2024 the Respondent Collector has been directed to obtain 'market value' of the property as per guidelines issued by the Collector from the District Registrar who is the authority in this regard in respect of market value and about stamp to be affixed for the purpose of

¶32

4 / 7

¶33

execution of the documents of different nature as per the Indian Stamp Act. Thereafter, it appears that vide memo dated 21.10.2024, demand has been made for the value of the land from the District Registrar to be submitted on 28.10.2024 and it appears that no opinion of District Registrar has been brought on record. However, from the memo dated 11.11.2024 issued by the Additional Tahsildar to the Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari, the market value of the property has been assessed at Rs. 1,43,42,400 and calculation has also been enclosed along with the letter dated 11.11.2024. Thus, the Petitioners were entitled to obtain the registration of the lease deed in their favour on the value of the property at Rs. 1,43,42,400/-. However, the Repsondent No. 3 Collector has again written a letter dated 30.01.2025 through Upper Collector seeking clarification in respect of the market value of the property. The petitioners have brought into the notice of the authority by letter dated 18.03.2025 that no registration of sale deed is taking place, instead thereof, a lease deed has to be executed and calculation has also been appended in accordance with clause 35 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act which relates to leases to be executed for different period on which different type of stamp duty is chargeable.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that two state authorities are interpreting one provision of law with regard to the market value in relating to the provision of the market value to be calculated for the allotment of land. He would next contend that the said market value is calculated for the sale of land and not for the purpose of

¶35

5 / 7

¶36

execution of lease deed and in sale of land an outright transfer of the ownership of the property takes place and in case of execution of lease deed the ownership remains with the land owner and in the present case the same is State Government. He would next contend that the petitioners have already sent a cheque and the Respondent authorities be directed to present the cheque for payment and execute the requisite the lease deed in favour of the petitioner on an early date. He would lastly contend that the period of 02 years is going to be expired on 14^th September, 2025 and after expiry of two years the allotment letter shall stand cancelled.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the demand of Rs.5,62,43,750/- is as per norms. He further contended that as per Annexure R/1 the Collector has written a letter to the Secretary, C.G. Government, Department of Revenue for clarification as there is a huge difference in the calculation two state authorities which is still pending before the Respondent No.1. He further contended that the instant petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to clarify the value of the subject land as sought by the Collector, Raipur from Respondent No.1.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶39

Perusal of documents show that on 15.09.2023 Respondent No. 1 State Authority has allotted a plot of land bearing khasra no. 1223/8 admeasuring area 0.332 Hectare in accordance with the guidelines

¶40

6 / 7

¶41

contained in Revenue Book Circular Part 4 paragraph 26 at a concessional rate of 75% of the premium and rent etc. for establishment of the Super Speciality Hospital over the said land to the Petitioners. On 05.01.2024 the petitioners have received a demand note dated 05.01.2024 by which certain calculations have been made and the Respondent No. 4 Naib Tahsildar, Raipur has demanded a sum of Rs.5,62,43,750/-. On 07.03.2024 the petitioners have sent a letter bringing into the notice of the Respondent No. 4 Tahsildar discrepancies in their demand. On 19.06.2024 Respondent No. 3 Collector has asked for guidance from Respondent No. 1. On 01.10.2024 Respondent No.1 has directed Respondent No. 3 Collector to obtain 'market value' of the property as per guidelines issued by the Collector from the District Registrar. On 21.10.2024 demand has been made for the value of the land from the District Registrar. On 11.11.2024 memo was issued by the Additional Tehsildar to the Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari enclosing the calculation by the Registrar. On 30.01.2025 The Respondent No. 3 Collector has again arbitrarily written a letter through Upper Collector seeking clarification in respect of the market value of the property. On 18.03.2025 the petitioners have submitted a letter bringing to the knowledge of the authorities that the present is a case of executing a leased deed and not of outright sale. The Petitioners have also informed about paying the amount of Rs. 1,08,09,509/and have also enclosed a cheque drawn in favour of the Collector, District Raipur of Rs. 1,08,09,509/- for encashment.

¶42

7 / 7

¶43

Looking to the grievance raised by the petitioner and particularly the fact that there is discrepancy in the demand raised by the concerned authority and during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is agree to pay the lease agreement amount fixed by the concerned authorities as it is a charitable hospital, the Respondent No.1 is directed to take decision on the guidance sought by the Collector from the Respondent No.1 by memo 20/08/2025 (Annexure R/1) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and it is further directed that after taking decision the respondent authorities are directed to give minimum 45 days time to the petitioner to deposit the said amount.

¶44

Till the decision is taken on the application of the petitioner, the effect and operation of the order Annexure P/1 particularly the part that “ vkoafVfr }kjk mijksDr nks o”kZ dh le;kof/k esa jkf’k tek ugha djus ij vkoaVu vkns’k Loeso fujLr ekuk tkosxkA ” shall be kept in abeyance.

¶45

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any observation with respect to the value of the subject land.

¶46

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/-

¶47

SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶48

ashu

M/S Raipur Stone Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Raipur Stone Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurav Kumar Vs Guru Ghasidas Central University, Bilaspur

Amrit Lal Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anukalp Gupta (Minor) Vs Union of India

Chetan Kumar Jaiswal Vs Kisanlaal

Vanshika Shyamkunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh