Civil Writ Petition No.11394 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 29, 2011 Usha Sethi ...Petitioner VERSUS District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Hisar & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. A residential plot No.653-P measuring 556.14 sq. yards, situated in Abadi of Police Line Area, Hisar was allotted to one Ravinder Kaushik son of Shri Sita Ram. Conveyance deed was executed by HUDA in his favour on 2.3.2006. Said Ravinder Kaushik entered into an agreement to sell this plot in favour of petitioner-Usha Sethi on 16.12.2005 for a sale consideration of ` 14.00 lacs. Sale Civil Writ Petition No.11394 of 2009 : 2 : deed was executed on 17.3.2006. The Sub-Registrar, Hisar made reference of this sale deed under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 stating that the deed was registered at lesser rate than Collector rate and its market price be determined. The balance of the stamp duty was, thus, to be recovered. On receipt of this reference, the Collector sent notice to the petitioner on 31.3.2006 for hearing to be granted on 27.4.2006. This notice was never served upon the petitioner, but was served on one Preeti Sethi, who is not member of the petitioner's family. The Collector, thus, without considering this aspect passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay an additional stamp duty of `1,34,040/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same primarily on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Without considering this aspect of the issue involved, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present writ petition only to plead that the order would suffer for violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was neither served or afforded any opportunity of hearing. The facts as noticed above are not in any serious dispute. However, the State counsel would contend that only the Collector rate, which was fixed, has been charged. May be, the petitioner was asked to pay the additional stamp duty on this count, but once the Collector has enhanced the stamp duty paid by the petitioner, in fairness the petitioner was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. To afford fair hearing is a limb of principle of natural justice, which, by now is well established and is required to be strictly Civil Writ Petition No.11394 of 2009 : 3 : followed. Since the order would suffer on account of violation of principles of natural justice, the same is not sustainable on this ground alone. The order is, therefore, is set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. March 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE