JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts are taken from SBCWP No.1223/1997, M/s. Bhawal Synthetics Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and ors . 3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing of the impugned demand notices issued by the respondent No.2 Sub-Registrar, Mavli, Dist. Udaipur demanding difference of stamp duty of Rs. 1,07,580/- payable under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 read with Indian Stamps Act, 1899 for the period from April, 1993 to February, 1996 on the ground that the land in question purchased by the petitioner for setting up industrial unit was purchased for industrial purposes, whereas on the sale-deed (Annx.1) stamp duty was paid according to the purchase by the petitioner of agricultural land which was lesser. 4. The petitioner company preferred this writ petition straightway against the said demand notice admittedly without availing the alternative remedy by way of appeal available under the said Act. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 3.8.1998 and earlier while issuing the show cause notices on 27.3.1997, the coordinate bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned demand notice Annex.3 dated 16.1.1997. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta urged that the respondents could not straightway raise the demand of difference of stamp duty without passing any adjudication order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - company. He submitted that the land in question was actually purchased by the petitioner - company only as agricultural land vide Annex.1 sale-deed dated 13.3.1995 and thereafter the land in question was got converted for industrial purposes after paying the due conversion charges as stated in para 9 of the writ petition and for which the Dist. Collector passed an order on 17.7.1995. However, the documents relating to payment of said conversion charges have not been placed on record. Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta, therefore, urged that the respondent - Sub Registrar was not entitled to levy any difference of stamp duty and he has also challenged the validity of the Circular issued by the State Government No.1/95 (Annex.2) dated 1.1.1996. He submitted that the said Circular having been issued by the State Government after the date of purchase by the petitioner, the same did not apply to the petitioner - company. He submitted that the said Circular having been issued by the State Government after the date of purchase by the petitioner, the same did not apply to the petitioner - company. He submitted that the impugned demand was straightway raised purportedly in pursuance of an audit objection raised by the Auditor General of State of Rajasthan and on account of breach of principles of natural justice and in absence of adjudication order passed by the respondents in this regard, the impugned demand of difference of stamp duty deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr.K.K. Bissa learned counsel appearing for the respondents justified the said demand and submitted that the same was raised in pursuance of audit objections on the basis of Circular (Annex.2) dated 1.1.1996 and therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the said demand. He also raised objection about availability of alternative remedy available to the petitioner in this regard. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the serious dispute as to the facts was raised by the petitioner - company and as is now also sought to be raised in the present writ petition, the respondent - authority was duty bound to pass an adjudication order determining the demand of difference of stamp duty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Whether Circular Annex.2 dated 1.1.1996 applied to the facts of the petitioner or not and whether the agricultural land purchased by the petitioner company was got converted under the orders of the Dist. Collector for industrial purposes later on upon payment of due conversion charges as stated in para 9 of the writ petition or not, are all disputed questions of facts which are required to be determined by the respondent - authorities before raising the demand of difference of stamp duty in question straightway on the basis of audit objection without giving reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing in this regard. 8. Therefore, on this ground alone for breach of principles of natural justice in this regard, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar, Mavli, Dist. Udaipur for determining the questions raised by the petitioner company and pass appropriate speaking adjudication order in this regard after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - company. 9. Udaipur for determining the questions raised by the petitioner company and pass appropriate speaking adjudication order in this regard after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - company. 9. Accordingly, both these writ petition are disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 - Sub Registrar (Mavli) and authorised representatives of the petitioners may appear before the said authority in the first instance on 11.2.2013 and make his representation and raise objections alongwith relevant evidence and thereafter the respondent - authority is expected to decide the case of the petitioner - company within three months from today. It is needless to say that in case the order passed against the petitioners, the petitioners would be free to challenge the same by way of appeal or revision as provided in the relevant Act itself. Till the respondent authority decides the cases of the petitioners in aforesaid manner within three months as stated above, the interim order granted by this Court on 27.3.1997 shall further continue for a period of three months only. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the opposite party forthwith.Petitions disposed of. *******