Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27234 (ORI)

Bansidhar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

2026-01-15

A C Behera

body2026
JUDGMENT : A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2025(Annexure-13) passed in UV Case No.25 of 2011 by the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) as well as letter dated 11.07.2025(Annexure-16) issued by the said Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and to direct the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the registered sale deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009 executed in favour of the petitioner by Kishore Chandra Rout, Dushasan Rout and Muralidhar Rout. 2 . The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the sale deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009 was executed and registered by Kishore Chandra Rout, Dushasan Rout and Muralidhar Rout in favour of the petitioner, but, that said Sale Deed No.2596 was impounded on the ground of under valuation. For which, an Under Valuation Case(UV Case) No.25 of 2011 was initiated and in the said Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) as per notice dated 25.01.2024 directed to the petitioner for depositing the deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.38,25,000/-(rupees thirty-eight lakhs twenty-five thousand) and Registration Fees of Rs.15,30,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs thirty thousand) in total Rs.53,55,000/-(rupees fifty- three lakhs fifty-five thousand) within seven days. The petitioner deposited Rs.38,25,000/-(rupees thirty-eight lakhs twenty-five thousand) towards deficit Stamp Duty and Rs.15,30,000/-(rupees fifteen lakhs thirty thousand) towards registration fee in the month of June, 2025. For which, as per order dated 05.07.2025 passed in the said Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) directed the petitioner for payment of penalty @ 12.5% per annum on the deficient Stamp Duty and Registration Fees, i.e., Rs.73,63,125/-(rupees seventy-three lakhs sixty-three thousand one hundred twenty-five) on the ground of delay in depositing the above assessed deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee and issued a letter vide Letter No.3522 dated 11.07.2025(Annexure-16) directing the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid penalty amount, i.e., Rs.73,63,125/-(rupees seventy-three lakhs sixty-three thousand one hundred twenty-five) without releasing the registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the order dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011 as well as Letter No.3522 dated 11.07.2025(Annexure-16) and to direct the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner. 3 . I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner did not argue/press the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2025(Annexure-13) passed by the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) in Under Valuation Case No.25 of 2011, but, argued in support of his prayer for directing the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for returning the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) contending that, retention of the said sale deed on the ground of non-payment of penalty for delay in payment of the arrear Stamp Duty and Registration Fees is contrary to law. According to him, it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.2 for returning the sale deed immediately after registration in view of the provisions of law envisaged in Section 61 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Rule-100 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 read with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The law relating to the release of a registered sale deed in spite of initiation of Under Valuation Case like this matter at hand has already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:- (i) In a case between Harshpriya Construction(P) Ltd. vrs. The Inspector General of Registration and others : reported in 2010 (I) OLR-760 that, neither the Registering Officer nor the Indian Stamp Collector in exercising jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 is legally entitled to retain possession of the instrument(sale deed) of the petitioner after its registration. They are legally obliged to return the same. The Inspector General of Registration and others : reported in 2010 (I) OLR-760 that, neither the Registering Officer nor the Indian Stamp Collector in exercising jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 is legally entitled to retain possession of the instrument(sale deed) of the petitioner after its registration. They are legally obliged to return the same. Because, the dispute in terms of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(Orissa Amendment) Act under Section 47-A does not speak of the reference of the instrument itself to the Stamp Collector, on the other hand, it is obligatory on the part of the Registering Officer as per the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 to return the registered instrument. The provisions of the Rules cannot over-ride the provision of the Act. (ii) In a case between Kukumina Constructions(P) Ltd. vrs. Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda and others : reported in 2010 (II) OLR(D.B.)-19 that, Registering Officer is not justified to withhold the original document after registration of the same and issue the notice without payment of deficient Stamp Duty and Registration Fees. (iii) In a case between Kukumina Constructions(P) Ltd. vrs. Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda and others : reported in 2010 (II) OLR(D.B.)-19 that, an obligation is cast upon the Registering Officer make every endeavour to return the document promptly after the same is registered. He cannot withhold any document after the same is registered for any other purposes. If upon inspection or otherwise, it is found that, the fee payable under the Registration Act in relation to any document, which is already registered has not been paid, such fee may be recovered from the person, who presented the said document for registration as an arrear of land revenue. (iv) In a case between Veena Hasmukh Jain and another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in (1999) 5 SCC-725 and in a case between Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal and another vrs. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil and others : reported in (2024) 10 SCC-324 that, Stamp Duty is levied only on the document and not on registration. 5. (iv) In a case between Veena Hasmukh Jain and another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in (1999) 5 SCC-725 and in a case between Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal and another vrs. Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil and others : reported in (2024) 10 SCC-324 that, Stamp Duty is levied only on the document and not on registration. 5. When, the propositions of law in respect of releasing the sale deed after completion of registration has already been clarified in the ratio of aforesaid decisions that, it is the duty and obligation of the Registering Officer to make every endeavour for releasing the sale deed promptly after its registration, but, the Registering Authority cannot withhold any document(deed) after its registration for any other purpose, because, if upon inspection or otherwise, it is found that, the required fees under the Registration Act in relation to any document including Stamp Duty and Registration Fees has not been paid, then, the same may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, then at this juncture, the Stamp Collector-cum- IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) should not have withhold the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) from its releasing on the ground of delay in payment of the arrear Stamp Duty and Registration Fees as well as penalty for the same. For which, the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) for releasing the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) to the petitioner cannot be disallowed. 6 . Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed in part. 7 . In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) is directed for releasing the Registered Sale Deed No.2596 dated 25.02.2009(Annexure-1) to the properly authorized person within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this judgment. 8 . Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment to the Stamp Collector-cum-IGR, Odisha, Board of Revenue, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and the District Sub-registrar, Ganjam (Opposite Party No.8) immediately. 9 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.