[2025:RJ-JP:26072-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3351/2025

1. Om Prakash Charan S/o Kumer Dan Singh, Aged About

43 Years, Resident Of B- Sudamapuri-2, Harmada, Sikar Road, Jaipur. Rajasthan Presently Residing At Plot No. 20A, Rajshree Vihar, Macheda, Sikar Road, Harmada, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Sushil Kumar Joshi S/o Bajrang Lal Joshi, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 237, Pratap Nagar Vistar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Revenue, Secretriate Jaipur Through Deputy Secretary.

2. Collector (Stamp) Jaipur, Circle-Ii, Collectrate Circle, Jaipur.

3. Sub-Registrar, Rampura, Dabri, Jaipur.

4. Ramakant Sharma S/o Kishan Lal Sharma, Resident Of

101, Nirmal Vihar, Dadi Ka Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(Complainant)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Kumar Kumawat, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma &

Ms. Kinjal Surana HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

14/07/2025

1. Heard.

2. Petitioners by this writ petition have assailed the correctness and validity of demand notice dated 23.12.2024, by which a huge demand to the extent of Rs.72,34,404/- has been raised against the petitioners.

3. The sole ground on which the petitioners seeks to challenge the order is that the demand was raised without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the writ petition on affidavit, it has been emphatically stated that no notice was served upon the petitioners and the respondent authority proceeded to pass the impugned order and, therefore, present is a case of complete violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the order void ab initio.

4. We had granted liberty to the learned counsel for the respondents to file specific reply on this aspect. From the reply filed, all that has been reflected is that a notice was issued to the petitioners and a copy of dispatch register has been annexed along with the copy of the notice. However, respondents have failed to place on record any material to show that the notice was ever served on the petitioners, much less prior to the impugned communication and the demand of notice.

5. One of the important submissions made by learned counsel for respondents is that there exists a specific provision under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act of 1988’) itself wherein Section 52A, provides for a remedy of reopening of ex-parte orders. Referring to the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that if the petitioners have any such grievance that the order was passed against the petitioners without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without notice served on them, they could have approached the concerned authority itself, rather than approaching the Writ Court.

6. The provision contained in Section 52A of the Act of 1988 though contains a specific provision of reopening of cases where the ex-parte orders are passed, having found on record that there is no material available to establish service of notice on the petitioners, at this stage, we are not inclined to non-suit the petitioners only on the technical ground of existence of an alternate remedy. Once it is found that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order is rendered void ab initio. Therefore, it is a fit case where it should be directed to reopen without requiring the petitioners to undergo the routine procedure of applying under Section 52A of the Act of 1988 and getting it reopened. That course we would have followed had there been an arguable case made out by the respondents, seriously disputing the factual aspect regarding service of notice. That being not so, we are inclined to allow the petition, set-aside the impugned demand and remit the case to the authority concerned (Collecto