Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 657 (RAJ)

Raj Bahadur Singh Chauhan v. Collector (Stamps)

2024-04-23

AVNEESH JHINGAN, BHUWAN GOYAL

body2024
ORDER : (Avneesh Jhingan, J.) The matter comes up on an application for early hearing of the case. 2. For the reasons stated there in the application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up on Board today itself. 3. This petition is filed seeking quashing of ex-party order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Collector (Stamps), Ajmer. 4. The brief facts are that on 05.07.2006 petitioner purchased a plot bearing khasra No.8177 situated in Village Thok Maliyan, District Ajmer. On presentation of the papers for registration, the respondent issued a notice under section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter 'the Act of 1899') to show cause for the deficit in the stamp duty. The notice was responded to and the petitioner through counsel appeared before the respondent on 28.08.2009. After hearing the arguments the matter was fixed on 23.09.2009 for orders. Instead of pronouncing the order on date fixed, the order was passed proceeding ex-party against the petitioner and adjourning the matter to 20.10.2009 for adducing evidence. On 20.10.2009 pronouncement was made. Hence, the present petition. 5. The grievance raised in the petition is that from the zimni order, it is evident that the respondent was not proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. Further that the impugned order is non speaking. 6. Learned AAG for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that dispute was with regard to the valuation of the property. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 8. From the zimni orders, it is evident that the respondent had given a go-bye to the orders dictated on the previous dates and proceeded with the matter according to own whims. On 28.08.2009 after hearing the arguments the matter was fixed for pronouncement of the order. On 23.09.2009 it was recorded that the petitioner is unrepresented and is proceeded ex-party. Thereafter the matter was fixed for 20.10.2009 for evidence but on that date the order was pronounced. 9. From cursory look of the impugned order, it is clear that a pre-printed performa with the blanks was used. The order was passed by filling the blanks with hand and demand created. 10. The law is well settled that the quasi judicial authority has not only to record reason but these are to be communicated to the effected parties. 11. From cursory look of the impugned order, it is clear that a pre-printed performa with the blanks was used. The order was passed by filling the blanks with hand and demand created. 10. The law is well settled that the quasi judicial authority has not only to record reason but these are to be communicated to the effected parties. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for decision afresh. 12. Considering that the impugned order was passed in the year 2009, a sincere effort Should be made by the respondent to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible in the facts of the case. 13. The petition is allowed.