1 2025:CGHC:18379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1996 of 2025 1 - Meharban Singh S/o Late Darshan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Quarter No. 22 Sindhi Colony, Raipur Naka, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar Stamp Duty, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Through Chairman, Himalaya Complex, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 To direct the respondent authorities to ensure completion of enquiry and submission of enquiry report with further direction to take decision on the basis of enquiry report within stipulated period. 10.2 To grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, a shopkeeper, holds two shops on lease in the Himalaya Complex, a commercial building situated in Akashganga, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The complex is constructed on land owned by the Nagar Nigam, Durg, which was previously held by SADA and later merged with the Municipal Corporation Durg. The land was allotted on lease to Himalaya Commercial Complex, which constructed over 100 shops and leased them out to various shopkeepers. However, the company allegedly suppresses the actual market rate to evade stamp duty. When a shopkeeper transfers the shop, they surrender the lease to the company, pay 5% of the transfer value, and obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The company then leases the shop to the new purchaser, while the sale price is directly paid to the original shopkeeper. The transaction is done in cash, with a lower amount shown in the lease deed to attract minimal stamp duty, resulting in significant revenue loss. The petitioner brought this practice to the notice of respondent No. 2 through various complaints, leading to the constitution of a 3-member inquiry committee vide order dated 17.09.2024. However, no inquiry has been conducted, and the matter appears to have been shelved. Respondent No. 2 seems disinterested, having taken no further action or follow-up on the order dated 17.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint has been made before the Collector, Durg (wrongly written as the Collector, Raipur in the cause-title of this writ petition) in respect to evasion of stamp duty and accordingly, the Collector has constituted a team for enquiring the same on 17.09.2024, however till date, no report has 3 been produced. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a limited prayer that respondent authorities may be directed to ensure completion of enquiry and submission of enquiry report with further direction to take decision on the basis of enquiry report within stipulated period. 4. Learned State counsel submits that in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, since the complaint has been filed way back on 28.09.2021 and therafter, a committee was constituted on 17.09.2024, as such, the respondent No. 2 / the Collector, Durg is directed to complete the exercise of enquiry, to get the report and to pass appropriate order in respect to evasion of stamp duty as alleged by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not considered anything on merits of the case. The Collector, Durg shall pass order while considering merits of the case, in accordance with law. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE