PURNENDU KU. SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) The petitioners in this case assail the order dated 09.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Test Case No. 219/2014 assessing the duty money of Rs. 57,81,905/- to be deposited by the petitioners. It is apparent from the record that the petitioners have valued the Test Case at Rs. 1,40,00,000/- and, accordingly, filed a set of challan tendering Rs. 10,47,600/-. Thereafter the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar called for a report from the Collector on 14.10.2015 and on 20.5.2016 the learned District Judge had recorded in his order that the valuation report has not yet received from the Collector, Khurda. Hence he called for the bench mark valuation report from the concerned DSR. On 7.2016 the Office of the District Judge received letter No. 847 dated 27.6.2016 along with th present Bench Mark Valuation report with respect to Mouza Ramachandrapur, Uparabasta and Badanuagaon from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jatani. On 9.2016, the learned District Judge recorded that the duty money has been assessed for Rs. 57,81,905/-. Thereafter adjourned the case to 23.9.2016 for hearing regarding payment of duty money. Learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar has committed two errors. First error is that he called for a report from the DSR and curiously enough the Sub-Registrar, Jatani has submitted a report to the learned District Judge, Khurda. Second error is that by observing the duty money assessed for Rs. 57,81,905/- and posted the case for hearing regarding payment of duty money.

(3.) Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, drawing attention of the Court to Section 19-H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) submits that where an application for probate or letters of administration is made to any Court other than a High Court, the Court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Collector and it is the Collector, who has jurisdiction to report regarding the valuation of the property. However, the same has not been done. It is appropriate to quote Section 19-H of the Act:-