JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite party no.1-Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda to return the original sale deed No.2814/2007 to the petitioner and for quashing the notice dated 16.2.2008 under Annexure-3 by which the opposite party no.1 directed the petitioner either to deposit the deficit amount of stamp duty and registration fee as calculated by him or else to contest the matter to be referred to the next higher forum.

2. Short facts giving rise to this writ petition are that for maintenance of day-to-day affairs of Shree Lord Jagannath Temple, the Managing Committee after receipt of approval of the Government of Orissa for sale of the property in question pub¬lished a sale notice bearing No.142 dated 8.1.1996 inviting applications from prospective purchasers. Pursuant to the said notice, prospective purchasers applied for the same. On 8.6.1996, an open auction was held. In the said open auction, the present writ petitioner became the highest bidder and knocked the bid at Rs.41,000/- per acre. As per Section 16(2) of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, the Government of Orissa, through the Law Depart¬ment accorded permission vide letter No.9006 dated 26.04.1997 for sale of the scheduled property @ Rs.41,000/- per acre. Subse¬quently, because of some dispute between the petitioner-vendee and the vendor, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing O.J.C.No.8073 of 1997 before this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court vide its order dated 3.3.1998 directed the vendee-petitioner to deposit the consideration money at the rate of Rs.41,100/- per acre by 31.03.1998. Vide order dated 15.12.1998 in Misc. Case No.16727 of 1998 this Court permitted the petition¬er to deposit the balance sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards full and final consideration money of Rs.46,09,076/- within two weeks. The Court further ordered that only after deposit of Rs.2.00 lakhs the question of adjustment or forfeiture of the security deposit would be considered. The petitioner paid this shortfall amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs on 09.01.1999. However, the sale deed was presented on 26.11.2007 before opposite party no.1 for registration. Under Section-52(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act opp.party No.1 made over receipts to the vendee-petitioner on 26.11.2007. Oppo¬site party no.1 did not hand over the registered sale deed to the petitioner in spite of several approaches even long after expiry of the time for delivery of sale deed. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.1 issued a notice on 16.2.2008 under Annexure-3 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.56,15,648/- and Rs.14,03,914/- towards the deficit stamp duty and fees respec¬tively. It was further intimated in the said notice that if the petitioner did not want to make such payment as indicated in Annexure-3 and wanted to contest the case, the matter shall be referred to the next higher forum for valuation and realization of the deficit stamp duty and fees, if any. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner submitted that the registering officer has no power/au¬thority to withhold the sale deed after it was registered. The amounts of Rs.56,15,648/- and Rs.14,03,914/- assessed towards the deficit stamp duty and fees respectively are based on mere suspi¬cion of opposite party no.1. Since the property in question was put to open auction and the valuation of the property had been fixed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 8073/1997 disposed of on 03.03.1998 and the petitioner accordingly paid the said amount to the vendor by 09.01.1999 in addition to the earnest money of Rs.2.00 lakhs deposited with the vendor, opposite party no.1 has no authority or jurisdiction at all to come to a conclusion that the property had been under valued merely because the sale deed concerning the property was presented for registration on 26.11.2007. Opposite party no.1 has also no authority to initiate Under Valua