IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 857 of 2003 Date of Decision:- 04.03.2008 Sub Registrar Amritsar etc. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. vs. Varindervir Singh etc. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.857, 858 and 859 of 2003 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these three petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from C.R.No.857 of 2003. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeals preferred by the respondents were accepted and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner in exercise of their powers as Collectors whereby the respondents were directed to make up deficiency in the stamp duties, were set aside. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge would reveal that the appeals preferred by the respondents have been accepted primarily on the ground that no adequate C.R. No. 857 of 2003 -2- opportunity of being heard was afforded to them by the Collector before passing orders to make up the deficiency in the stamp duty. There appears to be no dispute on facts that the Collector, Amritsar did not give any reasonable opportunity of hearing which includes the opportunity to lead evidence, if so required, to the respondents in order to contend that the stamp duty affixed by them on their respective sale deeds, was in accordance with law. In the absence of any such opportunity, the liability to pay additional stamp duty could not be fastened upon them behind their back. No exception, thus, can be made to the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge. However, the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in not remanding the case to the Collector for a decision afresh and in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 7.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent that the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Amritsar for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondents in terms of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2 004 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 217. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Amritsar on 4.4.2008. Disposed of. March 04, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE