1 (WP 28 OF 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2010 Amarnath S.Bhide ….Petitioner Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors. …..Respondents ----- Mr.K.S. Dewal for Petitioner Mr.S.D. Rayrikar -AGP for State-Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. The Respondents have filed affidavit in reply affirmed on 26th October, 2010. 2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner had submitted his conveyance deed for registration and had paid stamp duty as per the directions given by the Collector of Stamps after he had adjudicated the said dispute upon an application made by the Petitioner herein. 2 (WP 28 OF 2010) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, however, suo- motu reviewed his order and by judgment and order dated 16th March, 2009 set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the Petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.10,62,400/-. The grievance of the Petitioner is that this order was passed without giving notice to the Petitioner. It is submitted that, therefore, there is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, it is submitted that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had only relied on the Ready Reckoner for the purpose of arriving at the said figure which is mentioned in his order. 3. The learned AGP for the State fairly conceded that no notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing the said order. 4. Perusal of the impugned order also indicates that 3 (WP 28 OF 2010) non-applicant was not present. The Respondent No.1 has also observed in his order that the envelop which was sent to the Petitioner returned back with the remark 'unclaimed' and, therefore, he held that notice was duly served on the non-applicant. In my view, the Revenue Authority ought to have ensured that the proper notice is duly served to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. The envelop with the remark 'unclaimed' has not been produced before this Court. On this ground alone, therefore, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Respondent No.1. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner shall remain present personally or through his advocate before the Revenue Authority on 7th February, 2011. All 4 (WP 28 OF 2010) contentions raised by the Petitioner in this petition are kept open. The Respondent No.1 shall decide the revision application on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)