SWADHIN KU. SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions involved herein have not only a common set of facts but also a common prayer except change of person and change in the stamp case number, which remain as under:-

(2.) Common fact as revealed from the aforesaid cases is that the petitioners involved therein duly presented an instrument for registration in accordance with law and the instrument presented for registration by each of the petitioner has been withheld under the premises of initiation of under valuation cases under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and as amended by Indian Stamp (Odisha Amendment) Act, 2008 (Odisha Act 8 of 2009). All the petitioners challenge the impugned action on the premises that withholding such instrument is without jurisdiction. They also challenge the very initiation of the Stamp proceedings for being contrary to the provisions contained in Section 47-A of the Act and made a claim that the instruments once submitted for registration, the registration is compulsory subject to however initiation of any proceeding in the garb of under valuation and initiation of any such proceeding being an independent proceeding has nothing to do with the registration. The facts further reveals that the cases involved sale deeds executed by the petitioners on 30.3.2015 in favour of the prospective buyers were duly presented for registration before the competent authority. The petitioners further pleaded that the instruments have been executed following the prevailing benchmark valuation made effect from 1.4.2013 supplied by opposite party No. 3 therein, hence all the petitioners claimed that there is no infirmity in the instrument presented before the Registering Authority requiring initiation of any proceeding under the Stamps Act.

(3.) Assailing the impugned actions, Sri R.K. Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners involving all the cases being assisted by Sri Rajeet Roy submitted that the very initiation of the proceedings under the Stamp Act is an example of serious abuse of process of law also involving arbitrary action of the Stamp Collector. It is also claimed that the proceedings also suffer for being contrary to the provision of law and without any authority. Annexure-6 involved therein cannot be termed as an intimation as contemplated under section 47-A of the Stamp Act. It is also contended that determination of under valuation is beyond the purview of the Sub-Registrar. It is thus claimed that the basis of under valuation is without any foundation and renders contrary to the earlier assessment made under Aannexure-7 as the benchmark valuation arrived at statutorily at that point of time. As per law, benchmark valuation has to be reassessed/revised biennially. The previous benchmark valuation being made on 1.4.2013, it is to remain effective till 30.2015 and the instruments, appearing at Annexure- 1, having been presented on 30.2015 was well within the statutory period of limitation and while the benchmark valuation made under Annexure-5/A was very much in force, any variation thereof can only be by way of amendment prescribed under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 40 of the Stamp Rules, which is vested only with the Collector. Sri Mohanty, thus contended that assessment made by the Registering Authority is without jurisdiction. Under the premises, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned action on valuation is not only illegal but also runs contrary to the provisions contained in Stamp Act and Rules therein. Referring to two of the decisions of this Court in the cases of Guru Prasad Mohanty and Anr. and Kailash Sahu v. State of Orissa and Ors., 2009 (II) OLR 65 and M/s. Harshpriya Construction (P) Ltd. v. The Inspector General of Registration, Orissa, Cuttack & Others, 2010 (1) OLR 760, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel submitted that the claims of the petitioners involving each of the writ petition have clear support of the above decisions of this Court and the writ petitions having support of statutory provision of law ought to be allowed.