IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6148 of 2026 Abinash Chandra Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. B. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.B. Panda, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 17.04.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to levy of stamp duty for registration of deed of lease-cum- sale in respect of Plot No.235(c), Prachi Enclave, Phase-II, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Khurda. 3. The writ petition arises out of a grievance concerning the levy of stamp duty and registration charges in respect of a residential property allotted under an affordable housing scheme. The petitioner, Abinash Chandra Sahoo, was allotted a core house with appurtenant land at Prachi Enclave, Bhubaneswar under an affordable housing scheme of the BDA in 2003 upon payment of the requisite consideration amount, and has been in possession ever since. However, the lease-cum-sale deed was not registered at that time and was taken up for registration only in 2014. At the time of such registration, the Sub-Registrar levied stamp duty and registration charges on the prevailing market value of the property instead of the consideration amount mentioned in the deed, p. 2 resulting in the petitioner being compelled to pay an excess amount. Subsequently, upon becoming aware of the legal position that stamp duty in such cases ought to be computed on the consideration value, the petitioner sought refund of the excess amount by approaching the Inspector General of Registration. His request was rejected vide communication dated 05.04.2024 directing him to seek remedy before a court. The petitioner initially approached the High Court by filing an earlier writ petition in 2024, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, he submitted a fresh representation in September 2024, highlighting not only the legal position but also the fact that similarly situated allottees had been granted refunds pursuant to court directions. Despite this, no effective steps were taken by the authorities, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court again by way of the present writ petition, seeking a direction for refund of the excess stamp duty and registration charges collected from him. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.1267 of 2024, wherein, in an identical set of facts involving the neighbour of the present Petitioner, the very same relief as sought for in the present writ petition was granted. Since the issue involved in the present case stands squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, this Court does not consider it necessary to delve into the moot question once again and render a detailed adjudication. p. 3 5. Accordingly, in view of the settled position of law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Opposite Party No.3 i.e. the Inspector General of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the decision in W.P.(C) No.1267 of 2024 and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, and the result thereof be communicated to the Petitioner a week thereafter. 6. It is further directed that, in the event it is found that excess stamp duty and registration charges have been collected from the Petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him within a further period of three weeks thereafter. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay