C.W.P. No.5089 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5089 of 2010 Date of Decision.19.08.2011 2. C.W.P. No.5090 of 2010 Harash Kumar s/o Sh. Santosh Kumar, resident of Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents 3. C.W.P. No.5095 of 2010 4. C.W.P. No.5098 of 2010 Mithlesh Kumar son of Sh. Suresh Shah, resident of Kartarpur Road, Kapurthala Road, Tehsil and District Kapurthala through his attorney Darshan Singh s/o Sh. Bala Singh resident of near Jhandamal School, Kapurthala, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The challenge to the impugned orders of the Collector assessing additional stamp duty as payable, inter alia, was on the ground that none of the petitioners had been served with copies of the C.W.P. No.5089 of 2010 -2- proceedings by the Collector. This Court had passed an order on 15.03.2011 directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala exercising the powers of Collector to produce the records regarding the service on the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Arvind Mittal, produces the records before me and I notice that none of the petitioners have been served though it is stated that they were not served because of incomplete addresses and they had been attempted to be served only on the addresses, which had been given in the sale deeds. The fact remains that rights of parties will be seriously jeopardized if a decision is taken without joining the petitioners in the enquiry for whatsoever reason. I am of the view that interest of justice would require that the parties shall be personally heard before a decision is taken. All the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioners shall appear before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala exercising the powers of Collector, Kapurthala under the Stamp Act on 16.09.2011. 2. The petitioners will not be required to be served any more notices and they shall take notice of this date as a date when they shall appear before the Additional Deputy Commissioners. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2011 Pankaj*