Om Prakash Charan S/O Kumer Dan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan … on 14 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Om Prakash Charan S/O Kumer Dan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan … on 14 July, 2025

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

[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

(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 05:01:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26072-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3351/2025]

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

(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 05:01:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26072-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3351/2025]

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 (Collector Stamps) to

issue fresh notice to the petitioners to hear and pass fresh orders

in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit that

a fix date of hearing of the case may be given, on which date, the

petitioners may appear before the concerned authority/Collector

Stamp, Jaipur Circle II.

8. Let the petitioners appear before the Collector concerned on

18.08.2025. On that day, the petitioners shall be duly served

notices and their acknowledgment shall be obtained. Thereafter,

the matter shall proceed and brought to its conclusion one way or

the other, affording reasonable period to file reply.

9. The petition is accordingly, allowed.

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

N.Gandhi/Gaurav/20

(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 05:01:22 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)