Digitally signed by SHOAIB S A H N O W A A I R B ANWAR D 20 a 2 te 5 : .12.02 2025:CGHC:58319-DB +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 872 of 2025

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Industries, Chhattisgarh Lic Bidg. Nivesh Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur Through Its Commissioner Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Registrar, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

4 - Deputy Registrar, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

... Appellants versus Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 431/a, Road No. 22, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) And Works At Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Through Its Director.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent : Shri Saumya Rai and Shri Rahul Ambast, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

02.12.2025

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2205/2011 whereby and where under the writ petition of the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed in part.

2. At the very outset, it is came to the notice of this Court challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 passed in WPC No. 2205/201, the writ petitioner/respondent herein has preferred appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 870/2024 which has been considered in detail and dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.01.2025 holding that learned Single Judge has not committed irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

3. While partly allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein, the learned Single Judge observed thus:

"21. From the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay the registration fee on the lease deed dated 14.07.2010. The petitioner has filed the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 along with the petition as Annexure P/2, whereas the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 has not been filed along with the petition. From perusal of the lease deed dated 14.07.2010, it appears that it is executed with respect to 207.465 hectares of land of village Rogda, Tarod, Amora and Nariyara, for which the certificate for exemption from payment of stamp duty was issued on 24.04.2010, whereas though a copy of other lease deed dated 14.05.2010 has not been annexed, but in the pleading, it is mentioned that the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 is with respect to 173.777 hectares of land, for which the certificate with respect to exemption from payment of stamp duty has been issued on 21.07.2010 (Annexure P/4). Although the said lease deed for 173.777 hectares of land was executed on 14.05.2010, but from perusal of the notice dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1), it appears that the said lease date was presented for its registration on 17.08.2010. The registration fee is payable on the deeds on its presentation for registration. Section 80 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that all fees for registration of documents under this Act shall be payable on the presentation of such documents. Therefore, when the document was presented on 17.08.2010, the requirement of the registration fee is to be seen on the date of its presentation i.e. on 17.08.2010. On 17.08.2010, the notification dated 16.06.2010 has already come, under which a certificate from exemption of payment of stamp duty with respect to 173.777 hectares of land of village Nariyara, Pawana and Dongakharod has been exempted and therefore even if the lease deed was executed, prior to the publication of the notification dated 16.06.2010, the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of registration fee, as he has already exempted from payment of stamp duty under the industrial polic