STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MANISHA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above are two writ petitions filed by the State of Orissa being aggrieved by the Judgments passed by the District Judge, Puri dated 6.10.2007 involving F.A.O. Nos.6/2006 and 7/2006 deciding a question of undervaluation claimed by the State involving registration of a sale deed by the private opposite party in respect of the petitioners in exercise of power under the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952.

(2.) Short background involved in these cases is that the opposite parties involving both the cases purchased Ac.04.06 decimals and Ac.04.01 decimals of "Patita Kisam" land out of a big patch of land, i.e., Ac.25.50 decimals in Mouza-Sipasarubali under Khata No.125, Plot No.328 corresponding to Puri Konark Development Authority, approved lay out Plot No. MIG-II, Plot No.2C/35 measuring 2000 sq.feet running from South to North 36' X 4" and East to West 55" from Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. for consideration of a sum of Rs. 70,000.00, vide registered sale deed dated 10.12004. Under the premises, the land in question has already a fair value and the consideration money set forth by the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar is found to be at a lower side, the private opposite party involved here in both the cases were noticed by the District Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Puri for payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 26,202.00 and registration fees of Rs. 4,764.00 taking the value of the land to be Rs. 3,08,200.00. In spite of notice indicated herein above, since the opposite party involved in both the cases did not deposit the deficit dues demanded by the Government, two cases were registered against each of them involving their land and the matter was forwarded to the Sub-Collector, Puri for taking decision in the U.V.Case No.1193/2005 and U.V.Case No.1192/2005. Both the above proceedings were allowed in favour of the State, the petitioner holding that no material could be produced by the opposite party herein in both the cases to establish that the Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. is a body corporate and exemption of deficit stamp duty and fee is warranted.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgments involving both the writ petitions, Sri. S. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring the provisions contained in Rule 2(f) of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 submitted that the vendor of the land sold to the opposite party involved in both the cases not being the statutory body is not entitled to any exemption and looking to the land value particulars available with the State Authority, there was illegality in the order passed by the original authority but however the District Judge while considering the issue failed in appreciating the aforesaid legal aspect and thereby landed in wrong and illegal order. Thus, a request is made by the State to interfere in the impugned judgments and set aside. Further referring to the communication of the Government, vide Annexure-2, Sri. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel also submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the communication under Annexure-2.