The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Sub-Registrar can make a reference without the original document, he must intimate the parties concerned about the reference proposed to be made, as required by Section 54 of the Act, and must observe principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged various orders passed by the Collector (Stamps), Udaipur, on the Gift deed executed in favour of petitioners (Petitioner No.1 in SBCWP No.14058/2019).

2. For the sake of clarity, facts from Mr. Narendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 14058/2019) are taken into consideration.

3. Petitioner No.2-Bhagwati Lal executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner No.1-Narendra Sharma on 09.03.2016, whereby a land situated in village Bed was, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur was conveyed to the petitioner No.1-Narendra Sharma.

4. At the time of registration, the Sub Registrar found that lesser stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner hence, he demanded payment of additional duty, which was readily paid by the petitioner and gift deed was registered on 09.03.2016 itself.

5. According to the petitioners, since the land covered by the Gift deed dated 09.03.2016 was not in accordance with the actual possession, i.e. instead of 0.1600 hectare, land admeasuring 0.2600 was indicated in the deed, a supplementary/rectification gift deed dated 23.09.2019 came to be executed, by which measurement of the land was corrected.

6. According to the petitioner No.1, without receiving any notice of the proceedings, he abruptly came to receive an order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Collector (Stamps) under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1998").

7. Upon learning about the order aforesaid, petitioner No.1 moved a review application dated 22.05.2019 and requested the Collector (Stamps) to review his order and pass a fresh order in light of the facts brought on record by him. It was also stated that the impugned order was passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing, and requisite facts thus could not be brought to his notice.

8. The Collector (Stamps)-respondent No.3 heard petitioner No.1 and passed an order dated 19.07.2019; maintained the demand of stamp duty, registration charges and surcharge, (as has been levied in order dated 22.01.2018) but raised additional amount as interest, on the subject gift deed dated 06.03.2016. Petitioner's contention regarding rectified gift deed did not find favour with the respondent No.3, as the same was executed after passing of the order dated 22.01.2018.

9. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners inter alia raising various grounds, however, considering the jurisdictional issue, viz. - before making a reference to the Collector (Stamps), the Sub-Registrar neither intimated the parties concerned nor did he call for the original gift deed, on which the stamp duty was sought to be recovered, matter was entertained and interim order was passed.

10. Mr. Tatia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act of 1998, the registering authority is required to call for the original instrument from the party by giving him a notice in writing to pay the deficit stamp duty and on failure of the party to pay the amount, he may make a reference to the Collector (Stamps).

11. Inviting Court's attention towards para No.4 of the writ petition, Mr. Tatia, argued that petitioner No.1 has specifically pleaded that before making reference, the Sub-Registrar has not issued any notice stipulated under Section 51 or 54 of the Act of 1998 and thus, entire proceedings are void and vitiated.

12. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench Judgment dated 11.04.2016 rendered in case of Kuri Chand Vs. DIG (Stamps) Udaipur & Anr. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 105/2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1327/2008 and argued that the present case is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment aforesaid and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

13. Learned counsel also made submissions on the merit of the order and raised grounds concerning determination or quantum of stamp duty.

14. Ms. Akshiti Shighvi, learned counsel a