Patitapaban Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

2. Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to levy of stamp duty for registration of deed of leasecum-sale dated 1^st September, 2021 (Annexure-2) in respect of Plot Nos.164 and 165, K-9A, Kalinga Vihar, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Khurda.

¶16

3. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement floated by Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), Petitioner applied for a Plot on lease-cum-sale basis. Pursuant to an agreement entered into, the Petitioner was delivered with possession of the said plot in the year 1999. 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 1^st September, 2021. However, the registering authority has levied stamp duty/registration fee on the said deed for registration as per the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

bench mark/market value of the property prevailing on the date of registration of the deed in question.

¶20

3.1 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner made a representation to the Inspector of General, Registration, Odisha, Cuttack (IGR) dated 13^th December, 2023 under Annexure-5 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 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

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.”

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

// 3 //

¶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 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.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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 13^th December, 2023 under Annexure-5 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 8^th February, 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

certified copy of this order and the result thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. Excess stamp duty/registration fee, if any, collected from the Petitioner at the time of registration of Lease-cum-Sale Deed dated 1^st September, 2021, shall also be refunded to him within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

6. As requested by Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, a copy of this order be handed over to him for communication and compliance.

¶33

bks

¶34

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 03-Jan-2024 19:59:49

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Patitapaban Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patitapaban Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bakreswar Dev Vs Sashi Sahoo

Prasanna Hota Vs Jagannath Hota

Saraswati Sahu Vs D.G of Police, Odisha, Cuttack

Lalit Mohan Mangaraj Vs Hemanta Kumar Panda

Gyanaranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Kapila Charan Parida Vs State of Odisha