JUDGMENT :

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both these writ petitions, therefore, these writ petitions are decided by this common order.

2. In SBCWP No.14741/2017 (Durga Bhati vs. State & Ors.), the following prayers were made:-

“1. That the notice impugned Annexure-3 dated 12.07.2017 issued by respondent No.4, order passed by Collector Stamp, Jodhpur Annexure-6 dated 05.07.2017 Stamp Case No.605/2017, may kindlyi be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondent may further be directed to not to recover any amount of stamp duty or penalty as has been levied on the petitioner in furtherance of the notice Annexure-2 and order impugned Annexure-6.

In SBCWP No.14740/2017 (Smt. Pramila Vs. State & Ors.), following prayers were made:-

“1. That the notice impugned Annexure-3 dated 12.04.2017 issued by respondent No.4, order passed by Collector, Stamp, Jodhpur Annexure-6 dated 5.7.2017 Stamp Case No.604/2017, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondent may further be directed to not to recover any stamp duty or penalty as has been levied on the petitioner in furtherance of the notice Annexure-3 and order impugned Annexure-6.”

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the petitioners-Smt. Durga Bhati and Smt. Pramila Bhati, purchased Plot Nos.119 and 86 respectively in Khasra No.380 of Village Pal and after purchasing the same, registry was got done on 30.12.2016 after site inspection and registered sale-deed was granted in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, in view of the audit objection of the authorities concerned, vide audit report dated 27.03.2017, the Inspector General (Stamps), initiated proceedings under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) against the petitioners and a notice Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioners to which, the petitioners filed reply on 12.06.2017. A copy of DLC rate (Annes.5) was supplied by the Collector (Stamps), Jodhpur Circle, Jodhpur. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-6) while imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.39,140/-and 78,270/-respectively with penalty, surcharge and interest against the petitioners, impounded their documents. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel Mr. C.P. Soni, representing the petitioners submitted that the respondents authorities have passed the impugned orders in a lackadaisical manner. The Chief Auditor General from the Office of Inspector General (Stamps), Ajmer, while submitting his report on 01.03.2017, found the document to be insufficiently stamped without assigning any reason and also, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while making a reference to the Collector, the Registering Authority, before or after registering the document, is required to send the document in original to the Collector for determining the market value and also for making assessment of the duty required to be charged. Once, a document is registered and returned to the party concerned, then, the document in its original, cannot be sent to the Collector for exercising powers to determine and assess the stamp duty. In the present case, the original documents were returned to the petitioners after registration and the petitioners were having possession over the original documents, therefore, the Registering Authority was not at all in a position to send the same to the Collector as prescribed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act of 1988.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing and thus, proceedings under Section 55 of the Act of 1988, have been initiated in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 55 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, when on receipt of information or suo moto, if the Collector