Sambalpur: Two years after allegations surfaced, Sambalpur district officials have taken a crucial step in addressing an alleged stamp paper fraud case in Rengali Tehsil office. The matter came to the fore after tehsildar Takhyaraj Bhitaria submitted a report to the Sambalpur Sub-Collector, detailing accusations of unauthorised stamp paper sales, Monday. Sources said the allegations first surfaced two years back. However, questions have been raised as to who pressurised the tehsildars to make such delay in conducting the probe and submitting the report until now.
The report mentions that stamp papers were sold without the buyers’ signatures, raising questions about procedural integrity, sources said. The alleged fraud was first reported in 2022 by Bimal Bihari Pattnaik, a Right to Information Act (RTI) activist who informed the Sub-Collector about irregularities in the sale of stamp papers. Originally worth Rs 10, the stamp papers were being sold at a price of Rs 1,300 each in Rengali tehsil without required signatures, he alleged. Despite repeated reminders, no action was initially taken.
Pattnaik submitted a fresh complaint June 18 this year, alleging that a vendor, Laxminarayan Sahu, had sold a stamp paper July 9, 2015, under serial number 2107, dated- 09.07.2015, with the name ‘Akshaya Barik’ falsely recorded as the buyer. However, another stamp paper with the same serial number was also sold. The report further highlights that two different stamp papers may have been issued under the same serial number, raising suspicion of forgery.
Also Read: 5 engineering students detained by police for ragging, suspended from Odisha college for a year
In one case, Akshaya Barik’s name and signature were present as the buyer, while another sold stamp paper listed no identifiable buyer details. This discrepancy has caused concern about how stamps were issued without verifying the buyer’s identity. The tehsildar fi nalised the report October 18, yet did not submit it until November 4, leading to further suspicion and speculation.
Sources reveal that a big volume of stamp paper sales may have led to such lapses, with the stamp paper vendor attributing the omission to “clerical oversights” due to heavy workload during the investigation. With the report now in the sub-collector’s office, all eyes are on the next steps it will take for accountability and resolution.
