IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9522 of 2004 Between: Shri G.S. Gupta … Petitioner AND The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, A.P. NBK Estates, Museerabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9522 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings dated 27.03.2004 in C.C.R.A.No.1/17003/2003 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he conﬁrmed order dated 16.07.2003 passed by respondent No.2. With respect to Development Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney dated 26.10.2002, which was registered in the oﬃce of Sub-Registrar, Vallabhnagar, Ranga Reddy District, respondent No.2 issued a purported notice on 26.05.2003. Though the said proceeding was styled as a notice, it is stated as under: “Therefore, Sri Gowrishankar Gupta who is the claimant in the document is hereby informed to pay the deﬁcit stamp duty of Rs.20,62,475/- and Registration Fee of Rs.— and 3 times penalty of Rs.61,87,425/- total Rs.82,49,900/- in this oﬃce on or before 02.06.2002 along with the original document to the District Registrar in the Registrar’s Oﬃce, Ranga Reddy District located at H.No.5-203/1, Moosapet ‘X’ Roads, Bhavaninagar Colony, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District and obtain receipt. Failing which action will be initiated to recover the said deﬁcit amount as per relevant sections under the Indian Stamps Act.” On receipt of the said proceeding, the petitioner sent representation dated 03.06.2003, wherein he stated that he received the said proceeding at the evening hours of 02.06.2003 and that if he is given an opportunity, he will send a detailed explanation. Accordingly, he requested respondent No.2 to inform him about the next date to enable him to make a representation. Without any further communication given by respondent No.2, he passed order dated 16.07.2003, wherein it is stated that though notice was issued to the petitioner neither he appeared nor submitted a representation before him and he held that the petitioner is liable to pay the deﬁcit stamp duty of Rs.20,62,475/- along with penalty of Rs.61,87,425/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before respondent No.1. By order dated 27.03.2004, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of respondent No.2. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 is in serious violation of principles of natural justice. He stated that though the proceeding issued by respondent No.2 on 26.05.2003 is styled as a notice, its contents reveal that the same was an order by itself. Even when the petitioner treated the same as notice and made a request for informing him about the next date for making a representation, respondent No.1 passed a ﬁnal order on 16.07.2003 without any further opportunity. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who sought to support the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. From the proceedings dated 26.05.2003, it is evident that respondent No.2 has determined the liability of the petitioner and called upon him to pay a sum of Rs.82,49,900/- on or before 02.06.2002. By any standard, the said proceedings cannot be termed as a notice. Though the petitioner requested for an opportunity to make a representation, without any further communication, respondent No.2 passed the ﬁnal order on 16.07.2003. Strangely in his order respondent No.2 has not referred to the request made by the petitioner on 03.06.2003. In the counter aﬃdavit, the plea of the petitioner that he made such a request has not been controverted by respondent No.2. Under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to issue a show cause notice as to why the amount required to make up the deﬁcit stamp duty should not be collected by him along with penality of three times of the deﬁcit stamp duty and after considering the representation, if any, made by the party, the Collector shall make determination by passing an order. In my considered view, respondent No.2 has not followed this mandatory procedure. Respondent No.1, in the order passed in the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner, failed to consider this aspect. For the abovementioned reasons, both the orders of respondent Nos.2 and 1 are quashed. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. He shall pass an order afresh, after allowing the petitioner to make a representation and giving him an opportunity of personal hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order of this Court shall be allowed to be kept in deposit and the same shall be subject to the result of the enquiry and order to be passed by respondent No.2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.08.2008 ES