Disposed

Rajakishore Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/17886/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking refund of excess stamp duty on a lease-cum-sale deed. Relying on a previous order, the Court directed the Registrar to decide the representation on differential duty and refund any excess within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation; IGR to decide representation and refund excess duty within four weeks.

Rajakishore Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 17886 OF 2022

¶2

Rajakishore Sahu

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.08.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to levy of stamp duty for registration of deed of leasecum-sale dated 7^th September, 2021 (Annexure-2) in respect of core house, i.e., MIG-277,K-9A, Kalinga Vihar, Bhubaneswar.

¶17

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 1995. Since then, the Petitioner is residing therein by completing construction of the core house. After much persuasion, a deed of lease-cum sale was executed between BDA and Petitioner and the same was registered on 7^th September, 2021. However, the registering authority has levied stamp duty on the said deed of registration as per the bench mark/market value of the property prevailing on the date of registration of the deed in question.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

3.1 Being aggrieved, the Secretary, Kalinga Vihar Development Association, in which the Petitioner is a member, represented the Under Secretary (Registration) on 27^th December, 2021 (Annexure-5 series) for consideration of the grievance of its members in levying the Stamp Duty as per the bench mark value of the property prevailing on the date of registration. The Petitioner also made a representation to the Inspector of General, Registration, Odisha, Cuttack (IGR) on 4^th February, 2022 (Annexure-5 Series) for consideration of levying Stamp Duty, 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 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 31^st March, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.8942 of 2021, held as under:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

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.”

¶26

3.2 It is his submission that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, as quoted above, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, vide its letter No.5921 dated 1^st 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 core houses 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.

¶27

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 25^th July, 2022, directed learned State Counsel to take instruction. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, however, prays for further time to take instruction in the matter.

¶28

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 31^st March, 2021 (Annexure-3) as well as letter dated 1^st 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.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

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 4^th February, 2022 (Annexure-5 series) 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 duty, if any, collected from the Petitioner at the time of registration of Lease-cum-Sale Deed dated 7^th September, 2021, shall also be refunded to him within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶33

¶34

application.

¶35

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Rajakishore Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajakishore Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Rabindranath Patro Vs v.Jhansirani Patro

Manoj Kumar Jena Vs Amulya Das

Santosh Kumar Moharana Vs Durgabati Sahoo

Susama Mohanty @Bhuyan Vs Dillip Kumar Khuntia

Premananda Das Vs State of Odisha

Karunakar Panigrahi Vs Secretary,Bartana C.S.