RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, hence, are taken up together for adjudication. However, for the sake of convenience, facts from CWP No.1320 of 2024 are being referred to hereinafter.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned notices have been issued by respondent No.3, i.e. concerned Sub Registrar-cum-Naib Tehsildar. The said authority was not competent to issue notices to the petitioners in view of Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The second contention raised was that the principles of natural justice were violated while issuing the impugned notices, ordering recovery of the amount from the petitioners.

(3.) Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case files.