The main legal point established is that the assessment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fees should be based on the valuation reflected in the instrument as per the relevant stamp rules, and the authority supplying the instrument holds jurisdiction over the valuation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanju 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 & Others Vs. Manoj Kumar reported in (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.

4. In the draft Lease-cum-Sale Deed it has been specifically mentioned that the Stamp Duty and Registration fees are to be assessed on the value of the land and not on the value of the building, since it has been exempted vide Revenue Excise Department Notification No. 55307 dated 30.08.1989. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the Stamp Duty and Registration Fees on the value of land mentioned in the instrument, as per the provisions of Rule-2(f)(ii) of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952. According to him, it is respondents who are responsible for not registering the lease agreement in the year 1992. Rather they, for the first time, issued letter on 26.11.2015 for the same. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the appellant. In view of the above, according to him, the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned Single Judge, by conjoint reading of the provisions of Rule-2(f)(i) and (ii) and by applying the ratio in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) has come to the finding that the demand of the registering authority is strictly in terms of the provision of the Rules, 1952 and thus, the same need not be interfered with.

6. The ap