Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Anjana Devi Panwar & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 16 September, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009
Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors
and one connected matter
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
-----------------------------------------------------------
(1) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 PETITIONERS
1. Smt. Anjana Devi W/o Shri Narendra Porwal, aged about 47 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajaareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Payal Porwal D/o Shri Narendra Porwal, aged about 26 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Smt. Seeta Devi W/o Shri Basant Kumar Porwal, aged about 50 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS
1.State of Rajasthan through Revenue Secretary, Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Collector (Mudrank), Vrat, Udaipur (Raj.) 3. Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Kothari, R/o 7, Kanji Ka Hata, Udaipur (Raj.) (Proforma Respondent) (2) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10644 of 2009 PETITIONERS
1. Smt. Anjana Devi Porwal W/o Shri Narendra Porwal, aged about 47 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajaareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Payal Porwal D/o Shri Narendra Porwal, aged about 26 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Smt. Seeta Devi W/o Shri Basant Kumar Porwal, aged about 50 years, R/o 3-B-11 Hajareshwar Colony, Udaipur (Raj.) CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 2 VERSUS RESPONDENTS
1. State of Rajasthan through Revenue Secretary, Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Collector (Mudrank), Vrat, Udaipur (Raj.) 3. Smt. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Kothari, R/o 7, Kanji Ka Hata, Udaipur (Raj.) (Proforma Respondent) Date of Order: 16.9.2016 HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.
Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kawadia, for the respondents.
1. These writ petitions involving identical question of law, arising out of the orders passed by the Collector (Stamp) Circle, Udaipur, based on similar facts were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners purchased land ad measuring 0.4300 hectare comprising Arazi no.3847 & 3852 and the land measuring 0.4200 hectare comprising Arazi no.3847, 3851, 3849 & 3850, situated at Village- Roopnagar, Patwar Circle, Bhuwana, each for consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of two separate CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 3 registered sale deeds dated 17.6.04. The sale deeds presented for registration were returned to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar, Udaipur-II, after due registration. Later, the Sub Registrar, Udaipur, made a reference to the Collector (Stamp), Udaipur, under Section 47A(2) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as adapted by the State of Rajasthan, for determination of deficient stamp duty and the registration charges pursuant to audit objection made by the inspecting team of Department of Registration and Stamp, Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated 5.10.05. The Collector (Stamp) proceeded to accept the reference made, according to the petitioner ex parte and proceeded to determine the deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty vide order dated 17.7.06. The petitioner came to know about the order being passed by the Collector (Stamp) as aforesaid, a notice dated 16.10.09 published in the newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated 20.10.09 for recovery of deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,28,100/- in respect of two different transactions of sale. Hence, CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 4 these petitions.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reference was made by the Sub Registrar, Udaipur-II, on the basis of the alleged audit objection unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the notices alleged to have been issued by the Collector (Stamp) were never served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that from bare perusal of the orders impugned, it is manifestly clear that the notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar dated 17.7.06 and on the same day, the order impugned was passed and thus, the petitioners stand denied an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the order further reveals that the Collector (Stamp) has accepted the reference made without application of the mind and even did not care to determine the deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty if any, on the basis of material if any brought on record and thus, the cryptic orders passed by the Collector (Stamp) deserve to be set aside on this count alone. Learned counsel submitted CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 5 that after lapse of more than 1½ years, the Collector (Stamp) without original instrument being on record, had no authority to determine the deficient stamp duty, registration charges and penalty. Learned counsel urged that as a matter of fact, the reference made after inordinate delay was incompetent. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of 'Shankar Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.' 2006 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 452.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that since despite service the petitioners did not appear, the Collector (Stamp) was absolutely justified in proceeding ex parte against them. Learned counsel urged that there being no contest to the reference made, the Collector (Stamp) has committed no error in accepting the reference and in determining the stamp duty, registration charges and penalty, as proposed by the Sub Registrar-II, Udaipur.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 6
6. A bare perusal of the order impugned placed on record reveals that while noticing the absence of the petitioners, the notice was ordered to be published in the newspaper. It is specifically mentioned in the order impugned that the notice was published in newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 17.7.06 and on the same day, the orders impugned were passed by the Collector (Stamp). In this view of the matter, the orders impugned having evil and civil consequences passed by the Collector (Stamp), without extending an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in gross violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside. Moreover, on the reference being made by the Sub Registrar, the Collector (Stamp) is required to examine the entire record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property and if after such examination he had reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument he was required to determine in accordance with the procedure provided in sub section (2) of Section 47A i.e. giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 7 heard and after holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, the market value and the amount of stamp duty together with the penalty as provided for. A bare perusal of the orders impugned reveals that no such exercise was undertaken by the Collector (Stamp) and he has accepted the reference made and determined the deficient stamp duty and penalty by merely recording its ipse dixit.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the orders impugned passed by the Collector (Stamp) in gross violation of provisions of Section 47A of the Act and the elementary principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders impugned dated 17.7.06 passed by the Collector (Stamp) are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the Collector (Stamp) for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Collector (Stamp) on 24.10.16. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all objections available under the law before the Collector (Stamp) including the objection regarding the competence of CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.10647 of 2009 Smt. Anjana Devi & Ors. Vs. State & Ors and one connected matter 8 the reference made by the Sub Registrar-II, Udaipur. Needless to say that the Collector (Stamp) shall consider all the objections to be raised by the petitioner objectively and shall pass a speaking order. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
vij