1 W.P.No.5777/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5777 OF 2011. 1. M/s Aurangabad Electricals Ltd., through Mr.Premchand S/o Parasram Agrawal, Age 52 yrs. Occ.Service, R/o CMD Office, Gut No.65, Village Chitegaon, Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. 2. M/s OMR Bagla Automotive Systems India Ltd., Gut No.217, Village Chitegaon, Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad, through Mr.Ajaykumar S/o Dnyaneshwar Tannu, Age 49 Yrs., Occ.Service. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Deputy Inspector General, & Controller of Stamps, Aurangabad. 3. Joint District Registrar/ Collector of Stamps, District Registrar/Collector Office, Aurangabad. 4. Sub-Registrar, Paithan, Sub-Registrar's Office, Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Respondents. 2 W.P.No.5777/11 ... Mr.R.F.Totala, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present petitioner impugns the order dated 13.7.2011, issued by the Sub- Registrar, Paithan. 4. Vide the impugned order the petitioner is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,04,22,183/- (Rupees one crore four lacs twenty two thousand one hundred eighty three). The same is passed purportedly U/s 33-A of the Bombay Stamp Act. 3 W.P.No.5777/11 5. Mr.Choudhari, learned Addl.Govt. Pleader has clarified that the same is the notice and before claiming the amount, opportunity of hearing was given but the petitioner did not avail. Mr.Totala, learned counsel denies this fact. It is submitted that petitioners shall be given opportunity of hearing. In light of that, no dispute remains in the petition. Even otherwise, Section 33-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, contemplates that the original instrument is to be called after giving the party an opportunity of being heard and reasons are to be recorded. In the present case, the said opportunity of hearing does not appear to have been given. 6. In view of above, I pass the following order : (a) The recovery as contemplated in the impugned order/notice dated 13.7.2011 shall not be made till the controversy is decided U/s 33-A after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the Sub-Registrar, Paithan on 15.12.2011 and after hearing the petitioner, the Sub-Registrar, 4 W.P.No.5777/11 Paithan shall pass necessary orders.The parties will be governed by the orders passed thereafter. (b) The said proceedings shall be decided within two (2) months. (c) Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5777.11