Back
2012 Supreme(Ori) 361
ORISSA HIGH COURT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. AND B.K. MISRA, JJ.
Capital Bar Association, Bhubaneswar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and two others - Opp. Parties
W. P. (C) Nos. 18036 and 18312 of 2012
Decided On : 14th December, 2012
Subject
Property Law - Valuation
Act Referred
Headnote
2. MAXIM - "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" - If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner, otherwise it would not have the sanctity in the eye of law. (Para - 26)
3. JUSTICE - Indian Constitution provides for an independent and efficient justice delivery system to render justice to the people of the country and others - Dispensation of justice must not be stopped for any reason.
Members of the legal fraternity as important as that of the Judges of the judicial system and they are required to protect the interest of the general public as well as the Nation, therefore, they are always termed as learned and belong to the noble profession. However, it is noticed that raising voice against the revised Bench Mark Valuation in question, Members of the petitioners' Association as well as the Deed Writers have boycotted both the District as well as Sub-Registrars Office & Registration works, even though he BMV Notification has been challenged before this Court seeking the relief to quash the same, and for that reason large number of people as well as the government revenue have been affected. Therefore, we hope and trust that the learned Members of the Bar Associations will refrain themselves from such kind of practice in future and if they feel aggrieved, they can challenge the same in accordance with law and get redressal of the public grievance by approaching the appropriate court of law to protect the public interest 'and to see that rule of law shall prevail in the democratic country. (Para - 27)
For Petitioner: M/s. Ramakant Mohanty, D.K. Mohanty, S. Mohanty, S. Mohanty and S.N. Biswal
For Opp. Parties:Mr. R.K. Mohapatra. Govt. Advocate & Mr. B.K. Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the District Level Valuation Committee, Khurda in their meeting dated 11.06.2012 in respect of the area under the Khurda district under Rule 40(1) of the Orissa Stamp (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called the 'Rules, 2001 ) and approval thereof by the Government of Odisha in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide letter dated 28.08.2012 and consequent Notification dated 31.08.2012 of the Sub-Registrar, Khurda, Bhubaneswar enhancing the Bench Mark Valuation (hereinafter referred to as 'BMV').
2. The first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 18036/2012, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the Capital Bar Association, Bhubaneswar challenging the aforesaid action of the opposite parties on various grounds particularly on the ground that the Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the opposite parties are not in accordance with the Orissa Stamp Act & Rules, therefore, it is prayed that the letter dated 28.08.2012 of the Government of Odisha and Notification dated 31.08.2012 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the first writ petition is required to be quashed.
3. The second writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 18312/2012 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the vendor and vendee of a piece of property in Bhubaneswar, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid Notification dated 31.08.2012 and further to direct the Sub-Registrar, Khordha to register their sale deed in terms of the earlier Bench Mark Valuation dated 26.2.2011.
4. The case of the petitioners in the second writ petition in brief is that petitioner No.1. (vendor) wanted to sale a piece of property and executed the registered sale deed dated 13.09.2011 and presented it for registration, wherein petitioners disclosed the value of the land as per the Bench Mark Valuation fixed vide earlier Notification dated 26.2.2011. On presentation of the sale deed, the same was not registered by the Registering Authority on the ground of new Bench Mark Valuation fixed by the Committee vide aforesaid Notification dated 31.08.2012. Therefore, the Dist. Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khordha issued notice dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure-2) to the petitioners stating that the valuation of the land in question is undervalued as the Bench Mark Valuation of the said land fixed by the government under Rule 38(e) of the Rules, 2001 comes to Rs. 5.00 lakhs and as such the said deed is found to be undervalued in terms of B.M.V. of the property involving the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/-, therefore, petitioner was directed to pay the deficit Stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/-. It is stated by the petitioners that on receiving such notice petitioners found that the valuation disclosed in the said notice is 500% excess to the earlier Bench Mark Valuation dated 26.2.2011. It is submitted that the last revision of Bench Mark Valuation was made and given effect to by the Bench Mark Valuation Committee in the district of Khurda on 25.2.2011. In view of the provisions under Rule 40 of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called "the Stamp Rules") the period of revision has to be biennial that means further revision is not provided until further two years of last valuation is completed. Therefore, it is submitted that since the last revision of valuation was fixed on 25.2.2011 it has to be in force up to February, 2013. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioners in second writ petition is that as before completion of two years the impugned Notification has been issued enhancing the Bench Mark Valuation to an unreasonable extent, the impugned Notification is bad in the eye of law and is required to be quashed.
5. The case of the petitioner-Association in the first writ petition in brief is that a meeting of the District Level Valuation Committee (DLVC), Khurda was held on 11.05.2012 under the Chairmanship of Collector & District M
