S.PANDA,J. - (1.)The appellant by means of this Writ Appeal assails the judgment dated 18.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12841 of 2016, rejecting the Writ Application filed by the appellant.
(2.)The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18.04.2019 held that the demand of the registering authority is strictly in terms of the provision contained in Rule 2 (f) (ii) of The Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952 and he has taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Manoj Kumar , 2010 4 SCC 350.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the provision contemplated under Rule-2 (f) (ii) in its proper perspective. Rule-2 (f) (ii) of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952 mandates that the value of any property, which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or any authority or body incorporated by or under any law for the time being in force 'as shown in the instrument'. He has further submitted that as per the said Rule, the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is payable on the value of the property mentioned in the instrument, i.e. the Lease Deed dated 29.09.1992, which has been supplied by the Respondent No.1 and not on the Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the District Valuation Committee. He further submitted that the case of State of Haryana and others V. Manoj Kumar has no application to the case of the appellant since in the said case the dispute was between two private individuals and had arisen out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The said judgment was also rendered keeping in view the provisions contemplated under Haryana Amendment to Stamps Act, 1899. In the said decision the Apex Court has discussed the scope of interference by the High Court with the concurrent findings of facts while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said case the instrument was referred to the authority under Section 47-A of the Haryana Amendment to Stamp Act, which was applicable to the parties in case where the instrument was undervalued how it will be dealt with the same. Accordingly, the District Collector, Faridabad has given a finding which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Thus the dispute in the present case is that the valuation reflected in the document, which was prepared by the Odisha State Housing Board is to be accepted as the valuation of the land or not. In view of such the same is to be accepted in accordance with Rule 2 (f) (ii) of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952.