1 2025:CGHC:46417-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 672 of 2025 Rohani Dubey W/o Rajiv Kumar Dubey Aged About 50 Years R/o Nirala Nagar, Bilaspur, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, P.S.-Rakhi, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Of Stamps Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Registrar Of The Sub Registrar Office SR-2, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Renu Joshi W/o Dev Prasad Joshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Raipur Housing Board Colony Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.11 18:39:23 +0530 2 11.09.2025 1. Heard Mr.Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State on IA No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 03 days in filing the present writ appeal. 2. On due consideration, the application (IA No.01/2025) is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.425 of 2021 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 5. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a registered sale- deed was executed by respondent No.4, namely Renu Joshi, in favour of the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant further pleaded that the service charge of Rs.2,400/- has been levied without any authority of law 3 and the same is not provided under the Stamp Act or Registration Act. Feeling aggrieved for the same, the appellant has filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and is accordingly liable to be set aside. He further submits that the notification dated 15.03.2017, purportedly issued under Section 78, Clause (f) of the Registration Act, 1908, is beyond the legislative competence conferred by the statute. Section 78 restricts the State’s power to prescribe fees only for specific purposes such as registration or issuance of certified copies, and does not authorize the imposition of a per-page service charge for e-registration. He also submits that neither the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, nor the Registration Act, 1908, contemplates or provides for the levy of a separate service charge as imposed herein. The demand of Rs. 2400/- as service charge constitutes an unauthorized and illegal levy, tantamount to a tax imposed without lawful authority. The imposition of Rs. 60/- per page for a 40-page document, amounting to a total of Rs. 2400/-, is manifestly arbitrary and bears no reasonable nexus to the service rendered by the Registration Department. The notification fails to justify the rationale or basis for such quantum of charge, thereby violating the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the Sub- 4 Registrar’s failure to consider and adjudicate upon the appellant’s objection dated 02.01.2021 to the impugned service charge amounts to a denial of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was neither heard nor was any reasoned order passed in this regard. He further contended that learned Single Judge gravely erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the notification dated 15.03.2017 was not directly challenged. The appellant’s challenge to the levy of the service charge is inherently a challenge to the validity of the notification itself, and it was incumbent upon the Court to examine the legality and vires of the notification in exercise of its jurisdiction. The absence of any prior notice or adequate publicity regarding the issuance of the notification dated 15.03.2017 deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to comprehend, represent against, and challenge the imposition of the service charge, rendering the entire process unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the impugned service charge, lacking any statutory backing or legal sanction, offends Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no tax or fee shall be levied except by authority of law, and therefore, the levy is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and liable to be struck down. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State supports the impugned order 5 passed by learned Single Judge and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that 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. 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/-. 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 and dismissed the writ petition. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with wit petition 6 as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu