BABITA PADHY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has made prayer to quash the proceeding in U.V.M.C. No. 464 of 2008 and Certificate Case No. 27 of 2014, and consequential notices at Annexures -2, 4 series and 6.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that on the basis of the claim to be the owner on the strength of Hat Patta alleged to have been granted by the ruler of Kanika Estate, one Rabindra Nath Lenka executed in favour of the petitioner registered sale deed no. 5066 dated 24.8.2005 in respect of the land measuring an area of Ac. 2.500 pertaining to plot no. 321 under Khata No. 619 of Mouza Chandrasekharpur recorded in the name of G.A. Department of the State of Orissa. At the time of registration, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the above said land stands recorded in the name of the Government. In such circumstances, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner does not confer title over the land to the petitioner. The petitioner also never claimed title over the land nor possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner being aware that she has not derived any title on the strength of the aforesaid sale deed, never claimed any interest over the same. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner received notice at Annexure -2 from the Stamp Collector, Cuttack in U.V.M.C. No. 464 of 2008 for payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fees payable under the Indian Stamp (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1962 purported to have been issued under Rule 25(1) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952. In response to such notice, the petitioner filed representation at Annexure -3 stating therein that the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner having not conferred any title, the petitioner is not liable to pay any stamp duty. It is specifically averred at paragraphs 6 and 8 of the representation that the petitioner is not at all interested to take advantage and benefit of the registered sale deed in question and that she does not accept and admit the registered sale deed and the property purported to have been conveyed therein. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner on his representation. However, the petitioner received notice at Annexure -4 series in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2014 from the Special Certificate Officer -Cum -Sub -Collector, Berhampur with regard to requisition for certificate received from the Stamp Collector -Cum -Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack for payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fees. The petitioner filed application denying his liability at Annexure -5 stating, inter alia, at paragraph -6 as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that all non -testamentary instruments including a sale deed which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property are compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and all instruments chargeable with duty are required to be duly stamped in view of provision under Section 17 of the Act. However, in the present case, on the basis of false representation made by the vendor with regard to his right, title and interest over the land on the strength of Hat Patta issued by the ruler of Kanika Estate, the sale deed was executed and registered. The vendor failed to establish his title over the land and it was found that the land remained recorded in the name of the State Government. Petitioner's vendor has no title. Upon executing the instrument which purports to transfer title over land by way of sale, no right or liabilities was either created or extinguished. For all intent and purpose, registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void ab initio. The petitioner on receipt of notice dated 18.12.2013 at Annexure -2 of the Stamp Collector in U.V.M.C. No. 464 of 2008 directing her to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fees, filed objection at Annexure -3 for giving an opportunity to her of being heard in the matter to contend that the sale deed was nothing but a void document. However, the Stamp Collector issued requisition to the Certificate Officer. Upon receipt of notice from the Certificate Officer, the petitioner filed objection at Annexure -5. However, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. Instead, notice at Annexure -6 was issued for taking further action. It is earnestly contended that the petitioner has already been put to loss and harassment for the conduct of her vendor. Registered sale deed executed in her favour is a sham document which does not create or extinguish any right. The petitioner has availed no benefit out of it. The vendor never put the petitioner to possession over the land title of which he purported to have transferred to the petitioner. Though the sale deed has been stamped and registration fees have been paid on the same prior to registration, the document having been found to be void from the beginning, stamps used for execution of the sale deed are spoiled stamps. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court to avoid further harassment and loss. It is categorically contended that having come to know that the registered sale deed is a void document, as petitioner's vendor has no title over the land purported to have been sold therein, the petitioner has never claimed title or possession over the land and also is not capable of advancing any such claim in future. The registered sale deed being a void document, is to be treated to have been cancelled, and demand on the same is without jurisdiction.