Petitioner challenged levy of stamp duty on lease-cum-sale deed based on prevailing market value. Court relied on prior judgments and directed IGR to decide representation and refund excess amount collected.
Direction to IGR to refund differential stamp duty/registration fee within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 42732 OF 2023
Gyanaranjan Sahoo …. Petitioner
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties Mr. D.K. Mohnaty, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
03.01.2024
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
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 27th November, 2018 (Annexure-2) in respect of Plot No.HIG-113, K-6, Kalinga Vihar, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Khurda.
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 2003. 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 27th November, 2018. However, the registering authority has levied stamp duty/registration fee on the said deed for registration as per the
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
bench mark/market value of the property prevailing on the date of registration of the deed in question.
3.1 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner made a representation to the Inspector of General, Registration, Odisha, Cuttack (IGR) dated 22nd 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 31st March, 2021, passed in W.P.(C) No.8942 of 2021, held as under:-
“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.
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.
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.”
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
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 1st 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.
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 31st March, 2021 (Annexure-3) as well as letter dated 1st 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.
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 22nd 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 8th February, 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
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 27th November, 2018, shall also be refunded to him within a period of four weeks thereafter.
6. As requested by Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, a copy of this order be handed over to him for communication and compliance.
bks
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 03-Jan-2024 19:59:50
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether stamp duty on lease-cum-sale deed should be levied on the market value prevailing on the date of registration?
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of differential stamp duty/registration fee?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.8942 of 2021Referred¶20
Pradip Kumar Prusty Vs. State of Odisha and othersReferred¶27
Pradip Kumar Prusty Vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.35140 of 2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gyanaranjan Sahoo
State of Odisha and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
