- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-2-2012 passed by the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur on the ground that the order has been passed on the date of registration of the case itself without issuing any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing to him.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner as a vendee entered into an agreement to sell on or about 3-4-2008 with Om Prakash Sharma, the vendor who agreed to sell his property i.e. Plot No.128, Indra Colony, Bani Park Jaipur to the petitioner vendee for a sum of Rs.27 lacs, out of which the petitioner paid Rs.2 lacs as advance, and balance amount was to be paid by him to the vendor at the time of registration of agreement. A dispute however between the vendor and vendee owing to the vendor's disinclination to honour the agreement to sell and execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner arose. THEreupon the petitioner filed a suit No.27/2009, Manoj Dasot Vs. Om Prakash in the court of Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008. However during pendency of the suit, the defendant Om Prakash Sharma-the vendor filed an application under the Rajasthan Stamp Act before the trial court stating therein that the agreement to sell was not properly stamped and was undervalued, therefore it was not admissible in evidence. The petitioner as plaintiff in the suit agreed that the agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008 be sent to the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for assessment of stamp duty and the plaintiff would be ready to pay the duty determined. Consequently, considering the objection raised by the defendant and the plaintiff's admission, the trial court i.e. the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan City vide order dated 10-1-2012 referred the matter to the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for determination of the stamp duty payable in the facts under the provisions of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on the agreement to sale dated 3-4-2008 entered into between the plaintiff Manoj Dasot and the defendant Om Prakash Sharma. Following the order dated 10-1-2012, the trial court vide letter dated 25-1-2012 required the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur to assess the stamp duty payable on the agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008. It appears that on the reference by the trial court to the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur, the matter was registered on 3-2-2012 by the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur as case No.107/2012 and he proceeded to assess the stamp duty on the agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008, as Rs.80,900/-, and taking into consideration the fact that stamp duty was not paid at the time of the execution indicative of an intent to evade payment of stamp duty due, the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur levied a penalty ten times of the stamp duty as Rs.8,09,000/- vide impugned order dated 3-2-2012. Counsel for the petitioner has not addressed the question of levy of penalty on the stamp duty short paid on agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008, but his limited contention is that the impugned order dated 3-2-2012 has been passed in contravention of the principle of natural justice as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner herein. Mr. Khaspuria, learned counsel for the State would submit that this court should not interfere with the order dated 3-2-2012, as the remedy of revision under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 is available to the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record as also the impugned order dated 3-2-2012 passed by the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur. A perusal of the impugned order dated 3-2-2012 indicates that the same has been passed without notice to petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur. On reference of the matter by the trial court to the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur the matter was registered as case No.107/2012 on 3-2-2012 and on the same day the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In these facts of the case, Mr. Khaspuria's argument of the petitioner having an alternative remedy of filing a revision under the Act of 1998 is of no consequence as it is settled law that contravention of the principles of natural justice justifies a writ court overlooking availability of an alternative remedy and directly entertain a writ petition. Consequently, I set aside the order dated 3-2-2012 and remand the matter to the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for determination of the stamp duty on the agreement to sell dated 3-4-2008 between the plaintiff Manoj Dasot and the defendant Om Prakash Sharma, under the provisions of Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998 after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and allowing the petitioner to file his submissions stating why the penalty under the 1998 Act should not be levied on him. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional Collector (Stamps) Jaipur on 25-4-2012, thereupon the Additional Collector (Stamps) will decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within fifteen days thereafter. ;