IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 568 of 2010 (M/S) Swatantra Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and another ….Respondents Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 23 April, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Shri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 passed by respondent no.1 in Stamp Revision no.2 of 2005-06 and the order dated 21.02.2005, 11.07.2005, 05.09.2005 in Case No.176/Imponding/04-05 passed by respondent no.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a land bearing Khasra no.87 area 0.738 hectare and Khasra no.88 area 1.977 in Mauza Dadupur Govindpur, Pargana Jwalapur Tehsil & District Haridwar. The respondent no.2 initiated the proceedings under Section 33/40 k Stamp Act and registered the case no.176/impounding/04-05 and passed an exparte order on 21.02.2005 on the ground that land is recorded as Zamindari land and the stamp to be paid as applicable for residential area. The 2 respondent no.2 imposed Rs 76,500/- as stamp deficient and Rs 33,000/- as fee and also imposed penalty of Rs 76,500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a restoration application on 10.03.2005 before the respondent no.1. The same was allowed on 11.07.2005 subject to the condition of Rs 5,000/- as cost. The case was directed to be listed on 22.07.2005 for objection. The petitioner did not deposit the cost and sought adjournment for filing revision against the order dated 11.07.2005. Therefore, the respondent no.2 by order dated 05.09.2005 set aside earlier order dated 11.07.2005 and restored the order dated 21.02.2005. Aggrieved by the said order a Stamp Revision no.2 of 2005-06 was filed before the court of respondent no.1. The said revision was dismissed on 20.02.2008. Hence, this petition. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given reasons for delay in filing the writ petition in which it is mentioned that the petitioner is suffering from heart problem and since January 2008 he is seriously ill. It is also mentioned that in the month of December 2008 petitioner got open heart surgery done and again in the month of September 2009 he had to undergo another open heart surgery. Due to this reason he could not come before this court in time. Cause shown for delay in filing the writ petition is sufficient. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is very ill and is not in a position to deposit the stamp fee as well as fine of Rs 76,500/-. He further submitted that the order passed by the Additional Collector Finance, Haridwar was an exparte order as petitioner was not heard. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs 5,000/- as cost fixed by the Additional Collector, Finance in his order dated 11.07.2005. He also submitted that in the interest of justice the matter should be adjudicated by hearing all parties including the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering entire material available on record, this Court finds that reason for not depositing the cost in time was sufficient as petitioner was seriously ill for long period. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.02.2008 passed in Stamp Revison No.2 of 2005-06 and orders dated 21.02.2005 and 05.09.2005 passed in case no.176/Imponding/04- 05 are set aside. Additional Collector (Finance) Haridwar is directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh on merit after hearing both the parties subject to the condition that petitioner deposit Rs 5,000/- as cost within one month from today. In case the petitioner does not deposit Rs 5,000/- within a period of one month, the order granted by this Court shall stands vacated and orders dated 21.02.2005, 05.09.2005 and 20.02.2008 shall stand revived. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 23.04.2010