-QI^ ^ .p -3.^' ,^0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR s WRIT PETITIONNO. "" OF 2001 i) Harbhajan Bahal, Son of Shri Pyarelal Bahal, Aged about 61 years, resident of "Madhur" Ram Mandir Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2) Vishal Sagar Bahat, Son of Shri Harbhajan Bahal, aged about 21 years, resident of - "Madhur" Ram Mandir Road, Raipur. -^y .<'1''^*'' .-^^ PETITIONERS VERSUS ^ •' ^.^lt'- »* ^\v •^ ^."^•';' ^- -»\/";< •<' ^^-•" .^%S\..-^ 1) The State of Chhattisgarh, ^y^'\ y' ,^^^ Through the Secretary (Revenue) Raipur 2) The Inspector General of Stamps State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3) The Collector of Stamps & the District Registrar Raipur. 4) The Sub Registrar Raipur. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF^WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARY PROHIBITION ETC. AND/OR FOR ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR/AND DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRITS. •:^M^ ,.1 f;!: . ' ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.'^H AT BILASPUR . WRIT PETmON No. 1155 of2001 PETITIONER : Harbhajan Bahal & another. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE C.ONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Afflnihotri, J. Present: Sliri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioiier. Slm P.K.Bhaduri, Panel La^yer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(QRAL) (Passed on 29th day of July, 2010) Cliallenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.06.2001 (Amexiire P/l) aiid 02.06.2001 (Annexure P/2) passed bythe Collector ofStamps & District Registrar, Raipur, whereby fhe pefitioners have been directed to deposit the stanip duty without affordingl an opportunity ofhearing and without holding any enquiry. I Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner, relymg on the provisions ofsection 47-A (2) and (3) ofthe Indian Stamp Act, 1899, submits that tlie aforesaid Frovisions are very clear that if an instmment is to be bropglit before the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer shall register such instrument and ifthe Registerinjg Officer is ofthe view that fhe stamp duty is not proper as per the market value ofthe property, the same may be refbrred to the Collector. ThelCollector, onreceipt oftlie reference, pass order to deposit deficit stamp duty after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an cnquiry m such mamier as may be prescnbed, detennine the market value ofsuch property and fhe proper duty payable thereon. ^^^s^^ ^^:.. ^ %%j-%». 'y "^|||i5^-. -| •—^ l'^A^? "^^a^^" Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the legal position on this aspect is very clear as bare reading of the aforestated provisions do not admit any other interpretation other thasi as submitted by the petitioner. There is no dispute that no opportunity of hcaring was afforded aiid no enquiry was held before passing the impugiied orders for depositing stamp duty. In view ofthe foregoing, without going into the merits ofthe case, the impugiied orders dated 01.06.2001 (Annexure P/l) and 02.06.2001 (.Amiexiire P/2) passed by the Collector of Stamps & District Registrar, Raipur, ai'e quashed for want ofnecessaiy compliance ofthe provisions of law. However, on the request of leamed counsel for the State/respondents, liberty is resei-ved to the authorities to take appropriate steps fbr determimng the market value ofthe subject matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to Ihe above extent with the aforestated liberty, No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^iiiit