Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that two orders determining deficiency of the stamp duty under section 47 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, were passed.
(2.) AGGRIEVED with these two orders, the petitioners filed two separate revision being Appeal No. 46 of 2011, which is subject matter of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34665 of 2014 and Revision No. 48 of 2012, which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 34666 of 2014. When no interim order was passed, the petitioner in the matter of Revision No. 48 of 2012, filed Writ Petition No. 7987 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 13.2.2013 directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the aforesaid revision or at least the Stay Application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. For a period of two months or till the decision of the revision or consideration of the stay application, the realization of the deficient stamp duty, penalty and interest pursuant to the order of the Collector was stayed subject to verification of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount deposited by the petitioner. However, in Appeal No. 46 of 2011 an interim order dated 20.11.2012 was passed and in Revision No. 48 of 2012 an interim order dated 11.2.2013 was passed in which it was observed that the petitioner has deposited 1/3rd of the amount and accordingly the recovery is stayed for a period of 30 days. In the meantime, the verification of the amount deposited by the petitioner may be done. However, for one reason or the other both the cases filed by the petitioner could not be decided and despite the application moved by the petitioner, the interim order was not extended and the same have been kept pending, while on the other hand, the respondent authorities started taking steps -to recover the balance disputed amount, "the petitioner has also filed the copies of order sheet to demonstrate that they have not taken any adjournments in the pending revisions. Aggrieved with the actions of the respondents to recover the balance disputed amount, these writ petitions have been filed.
(3.) SRI Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have complied with the statutory conditions of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount which fact has also been verified yet neither the interim order has been extended nor the appeal/revision have been decided. He submits that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and unjustified.;