Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Smt.Manisha Das on 13 April, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 ORISSA 131
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
W.P.(C) NOS.3999 & 4000 OF 2008
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
In W.P.(C) No.3999/2008
State of Orissa : Petitioner
-Versus-
Smt.Manisha Das : Opp.Party
For petitioner : Sri S.Dash
Additional Standing Counsel
For O.P. : M/s.S.P.Sarangi, P.P.Mohanty,
D.K.Das & P.K.Dash
In W.P.(C) No.4000/2008
State of Orissa : Petitioner
-Versus-
Smt.Vandana Mishra : Opp.Party
For petitioner : Sri S.Dash
Additional Standing Counsel
For O.P. : None
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
Date of hearing : 07.04.2017 : Judgment : 13.04.2017
Biswanath Rath, J.The above are two writ petitions filed by the State of Orissa being aggrieved by the Judgments passed by the District Judge, Puri dated 6.10.2007 involving F.A.O. 2 Nos.6/2006 and 7/2006 deciding a question of undervaluation claimed by the State involving registration of a sale deed by the private opposite party in respect of the petitioners in exercise of power under the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952.
Common fact being involved, entering into common hearing, both the matters are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
2. Short background involved in these cases is that the opposite parties involving both the cases purchased Ac.04.06 decimals and Ac.04.01 decimals of "Patita Kisam" land out of a big patch of land, i.e., Ac.25.50 decimals in Mouza- Sipasarubali under Khata No.125, Plot No.328 corresponding to Puri Konark Development Authority, approved lay out Plot No.MIG-II, Plot No.2C/35 measuring 2000 sq.feet running from South to North 36' X 4" and East to West 55" from Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. for consideration of a sum of Rs.70,000/-, vide registered sale deed dated 10.12.2004. Under the premises, the land in question has already a fair value and the consideration money set forth by the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar is found to be at a lower side, the private opposite party involved here in both the cases were noticed by the District Sub-Registrar-cum- Stamp Collector, Puri for payment of deficit stamp duty of 3 Rs.26,202/- and registration fees of Rs.4,764/- taking the value of the land to be Rs.3,08,200/-. In spite of notice indicated herein above, since the opposite party involved in both the cases did not deposit the deficit dues demanded by the Government, two cases were registered against each of them involving their land and the matter was forwarded to the Sub-Collector, Puri for taking decision in the U.V.Case No.1193/2005 and U.V.Case No.1192/2005. Both the above proceedings were allowed in favour of the State, the petitioner holding that no material could be produced by the opposite party herein in both the cases to establish that the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. is a body corporate and exemption of deficit stamp duty and fee is warranted.
Being dissatisfied with the order involving U.V.Case No.1193/2005, the opposite party involved in both the cases preferred F.A.O. No.6/2006 and F.A.O. No.7/2006 respectively before the District Judge, Puri. It reveals, the District Judge, Puri being the appellate authority hearing both the sides set aside the order passed by the Collector and on the premises that the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. being a statutory body and remaining the owner of the land under sale are all exempted, and therefore, there is nothing due to the State Government.
4
3. Assailing the impugned judgments involving both the writ petitions, Sri S.Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring the provisions contained in Rule 2(f) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 submitted that the vendor of the land sold to the opposite party involved in both the cases not being the statutory body is not entitled to any exemption and looking to the land value particulars available with the State Authority, there was illegality in the order passed by the original authority but however the District Judge while considering the issue failed in appreciating the aforesaid legal aspect and thereby landed in wrong and illegal order. Thus, a request is made by the State to interfere in the impugned judgments and set aside. Further referring to the communication of the Government, vide Annexure-2, Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel also submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the communication under Annexure-2.
4. Sri S.P.Sarangi, learned counsel for the contesting private opposite party though not disputed the fact that there is no material to substantiate that the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar is a body corporate but taking this Court to the information regarding valuation of the land, submitted that there was no short payment either in respect of the stamp or registration fees and 5 thus, contended that the submission of the learned Additional Standing Counsel failed to satisfy the case of the State and thus claimed that the writ petitions should be dismissed for having no merit.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the private opposite party involved in both the cases purchased the land, particulars of which have been given herein above, from the vendor, the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Looking to the provisions of Rule 2(f)(ii) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952, which makes it clear that the exemption what has been provided therein has application to the authority or body incorporated under any law. Since there is no material to establish that the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar being a statutorily created Corporation but being a registered body only, the exemption provision cannot be attracted to the case at hand.
Now coming to decide the question of valuation involving the sale deed, this Court finds, the private opposite parties on their own admission accepted the land value per acre at the relevant point of time as Rs.67,00,000/- .
6. Taking into consideration the extent of land purchased by both the private opposite parties involving in both 6 the cases, this Court finds, there was no wrong committed by the Sub-Collector in passing the order under Annexure-1. Perusing the impugned judgment under Annexure-3, this Court finds, the appellate authority has completely failed in considering the restrictions imposed through Rule 2(f)(ii) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952. Further there being no dispute with regard to valuation of the land per acre at the relevant point of time standing at Rs.67,00,000/-, it appears, the appellate authority has also failed to appreciate the aspect of valuation considered by the registering authority and the Stamp Collector.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court finds, the impugned judgments under Annexure-3 involved in both the writ petitions are not sustainable and while setting aside Annexure-3 involved therein, this Court affirms the order passed under Annexure-1 in both the cases.
The writ petitions succeed. However, there is no order as to cost.
..............................
Biswanath Rath, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 13th day of April, 2017/mkr, secy.