1 2025:CGHC:2974-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 870 of 2024 KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 431/a, Road No. 22, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) And Works At Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. Through Its Managing Director. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Industries Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate of Industries Chhattisgarh, L I C Bldg., Nivesh Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Pandari, Raipur, Through Its Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Registrar District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 4 - Deputy Registrar Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.17 18:14:03 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocates For Respondents-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this appeal: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ appeal and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05/09/2024 (Annexure-WA/1) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.2205/2010, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.2205 of 2010 (KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited v. State 3 of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been allowed in part. 4. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that, KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited, previously known as Wardha Power Company Limited, Chhattisgarh Project, was a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at Plot No. 431/A, Road No. 22, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, who set up a coal based power plant at village Nariyara, District Janjgir-Champa with the capacity 3600 MW. For establishment of the aforesaid power plant in the Janjgir-Champa district, the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India issued an IEM on 17.01.2008, and similarly, the Department of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh executed an MoU on 15.02.2008 with the petitioner- Company. After issuance of necessary approval and permission by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India an MoU between the writ petitioner-Company and Department of Energy, Government of Chhattisgarh, a lease deed for the land in the industrial area for establishment of Power Plant/Industrial Unit was executed between the State of Chhattisgarh through the Executive Director, CSIDC, Raipur and the petitioner-Company vide lease deed dated 14.05.2010 in respect of the land admeasuring about 173.777 hectares, situated at Nariyara, Pawana and Dongakharod, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. Similarly, another lease deed was executed on 14.07.2010 in respect of the leased land admeasuring the area of about 4 207.465 hectares, situated at village Tarod, Amora and Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa. As per Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1899’) the State Government conferred power to reduce, remit or compound the stamp duties and the concerned State Government in exercise of its power under Section 9 of the Act of 1899 may, by rule or order published in Official Gazette, reduce or remit or compound the stamp duties. Under the industrial policy of 2009-2014 of the Government of Chhattisgarh, the Directorate of Industries, Chhattisgarh, vide its letter dated 24.04.2010 exempted the petitioner's power plant from payment of stamp duty during registration of the lease deed in respect of the leased land of 207.465 hectares village Tarod, Amora and Nariyara. Further, vide letter dated 21.07.2010 exempted the petitioner from payment of stamp duty during registration of the lease deed with respect of the leased land of about 173.777 hectares situated at village Nariyara, Pawana and Dongakharod. Certain terms have also been imposed in the said letters dated 24.04.2010 and 21.07.2010. As per Article 2 of the table of registration fees as prepared by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908, if lease is exempted from payment of stamp duty, the registration fee of an amount of only Rs. 50/- was applicable. Therefore, the writ petitioner-Company, who has already been exempted from payment of stamp duty vide letter dated 24.04.2010 and 21.07.2010 is liable to pay the registration fee of Rs. 50/- only for each of the lease deed. However, the respondent No. 4 5 had issued the impugned demand notice on 17/18.08.2010 to the petitioner-Company for deposit of total registration fee of Rs.1,59,79,945/-. In response to the demand notice dated 17/18.08.2010, the writ petitioner has submitted its detailed reply to the respondent No. 4 on 02.09.2010 and submitted that, Company was already exempted from payment of stamp duty in respect of two lease deeds, therefore, the petitioner-Company was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 50/- for each document as registration fee. The writ petitioner has deposited the demanded registration fees under protest in view of establishment of their power plant. The impugned demand notice dated 17/18.08.2010 issued by the respondent No. 4. 5. Being aggrieved with the action taken by the respondent authorities, appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.2205 of 2011, which was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.09.2024. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 has upheld the demand with respect of lease deed dated 14.07.2010 only on the ground that for the said lease deed, the certificate of exemption was issued on 24.04.2010 purportedly issued under the industrial policy of 2004-2009 however, the said policy was notified on 16.06.2010, therefore, the certificate could not have been issued under the said policy. He further submits that the writ petitioner 6 has claimed exemption on the strength of the exemption certificate issued on 24.04.2010 by the competent authority and the genuineness and existence of the certificate is not disputed, therefore, the rights of the writ petitioner cannot be affected without his fault merely because the respondent authorities have mentioned wrong notification while issuing the exemption certificate. Moreover, it is reiterated that the competence of the authority, existence of certificate, genuineness of the certificate and exemption granted under the same is not disputed by the respondent authorities, as such, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. After appreciating the contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties as well as considering the material available on record, learned Single Judge has found that the writ petitioner was required to pay the registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 executed by the State Government in favour of the writ petitioner with 7 respect to the land of 207.465 hectares of land of the village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara as per the prevailing rules and notifications under the Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. It is further held that the writ petitioner was not required to pay registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.05.2010, but the writ petitioner was required to pay registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 with respect to land of 207.465 hectares of land at village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara and as such, the impugned notice dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 for 207.465 hectares of land was upheld and with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 for 173.777 hectares of land was quashed. The petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount of registration fee deposited for the lease deed dated 14.05.2010, which was with respect to the land of 173.777 hectares of land along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposition till its payment. The learned Single Judge while relying upon the various law on the point has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant observing as follows :- “21. From the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay the registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.07.2010. The petitioner has filed the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 along 8 with the petition as Annexure P/2, whereas the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 has not been filed along with the petition. From perusal of the lease deed dated 14.07.2010, it appears that it is executed with respect to 207.465 hectares of land of village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara, for which the certificate for exemption from payment of stamp duty was issued on 24.04.2010, whereas though a copy of other lease deed dated 14.05.2010 has not been annexed, but in the pleading, it is mentioned that the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 is with respect to 173.777 hectares of land, for which the certificate with respect to exemption from payment of stamp duty has been issued on 21.07.2010 (Annexure P/4). Although the said lease deed for 173.777 hectares of land was executed on 14.05.2010, but from perusal of the notice dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1), it appears that the said lease date was presented for its registration on 17.08.2010. The registration fee is payable on the deeds on its presentation for registration. Section 80 9 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that all fees for registration of documents under this Act shall be payable on the presentation of such documents. Therefore, when the document was presented on 17.08.2010, the requirement of the registration fee is to be seen on the date of its presentation i.e. on 17.08.2010. On 17.08.2010, the notification dated 16.06.2010 has already come, under which a certificate from exemption of payment of stamp duty with respect to 173.777 hectares of land of village Nariyara, Pawana and Dongakharod has been exempted and therefore even if the lease deed was executed, prior to the publication of the notification dated 16.06.2010, the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of registration fee, as he has already exempted from payment of stamp duty under the industrial policy of the year 2009-14 applicable to the new ultra-mega industry. 22. 22. From the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is required to pay the registration fee on the lease deed 10 dated 14.07.2010 executed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner with respect to the land of 207.465 hectares of land of the village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara as per the prevailing rules and notifications under the Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. It is held that the petitioner is not required to pay registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.05.2010, but the petitioner is required to pay registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 with respect to land of 207.465 hectares of land at village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara. 23. The impugned notice dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 for 207.465 hectares of land is upheld and with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 for 173.777 hectares of land is quashed. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount of registration fee deposited for the lease deed dated 14.05.2010, which was with respect to the 11 land of 173.777 hectares of land along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposition till its payment. 24. With the aforesaid observation and conclusion, the present petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs.” 10. From perusal of the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.2205 of 2011, it transpires that the learned Single Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the point, has rightly allowed the writ petition in part filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 11. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu