1 2025:CGHC:27287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 425 of 2021 1 - Rohani Dubey R/o Rajiv Kumar Dubey Aged About 50 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, Bilaspur, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, P.S.- Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Of Stamps Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Registrar Of The Sub Registrar Officer Sr-2, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Renu Joshi W/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Housing Board Colony Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.06.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and be pleased to make an order to quash the service charge for the purpose of the registration of the any deed inclusive sale deed and also be directed not to repeat the same practice from the other persons. 10.2 Any other relief as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble in the facts and circumstances of the petition may kindly be passed.” 2. The facts of the present case are that a registered sale-deed was executed by respondent No.4, namely Renu Joshi, in favour of the petitioner on 2.1.2021. Respondent No.4 applied for e-registration for the execution of the sale deed and was directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,780/- as registration fee and service charges. However, both the petitioner and respondent No.4 refused to pay the above- stated charges. It is further pleaded that the amount of the registration fee was later revised to Rs.17,090/- (Rs.14,690/- towards the registration fee and Rs.2,400/- as a service charge). The petitioner further pleaded that the service charge of Rs.2,400/- has been levied without any authority of law and the same is not provided under the Stamp Act or Registration Act. 3. Learned counsel for the State has filed its reply and took a plea that the value of the property mentioned in the sale deed was Rs.7,34,089/-. Since the property was initially stated to be open 3 land, a 4% registration fee was assessed in accordance with the Stamp Act and Registration Act and guidelines issued by the State Government. Later on, the petitioner pointed out that the property in question is a dwelling house, not the open land and the registration and service charges were revised. Accordingly, as per the guidelines of the State Government, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were directed to pay a service charge of Rs. 2400. It is further pleaded that the State Government vide its notification dated 1.2.2017, exercising the power under Section 69(1)(a)(aa) read with Section 16(a) of sub-section (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandated that all the documents required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act must be submitted through the e-registration application. It is further pleaded that since the petitioner and respondent No.4 opted for e- registration, they were required to pay the charge of Rs.60/- per page according to the notification issued by the State Government dated 15.3.2017 and it was assessed to the sum of Rs.2,400/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the imposition of the service charge is without any authority of law. He would contend that neither the Stamp Act nor the Registration Act provides for the levy of such service charges and therefore, prays for quashing of the order whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the same. -4- 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. The petitioner has challenged the levy of the service charge of Rs.2,400/- by the Sub-Registrar, Raipur pursuant to the e- registration of the sale deed. 8. Admittedly, the valuation of the property was Rs.7,34,089/- and accordingly, the registration fee was assessed at Rs.14,690/-, with an additional service charge of Rs.2,400/-. As per the notification of the State Government dated 15.3.2017, an additional charge of Rs.60/- per page is applicable for the registration of documents/deeds. Since the sale-deed submitted by the petitioner was 40 pages, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were required to pay a service charge of Rs.2,400/-. 9. In the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the notification issued by the State Government dated 15.3.2017. Therefore, the assessment of the service charge by the Sub- Registrar, Raipur appears to be reasonable and in accordance with the law. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi