Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4268/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4268 of 2010
=========================================================
VINODRAY
MOHANLAL AMRUTIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH K SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ASHVIN J POPAT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS MANISHA NARSINGHANI,
Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 11/05/2010
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed
this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India praying
for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 30.3.2010 of the
respondent the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, City
Division-1, Rajkot. The petitioner has also prayed for the
direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of
the petitioner and to decide the same on merits. The petitioner has
also asked for stay against the implementation and execution of
notice dated 5.1.2010 issued under Rule-118 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Rules.
This Court has issued
notice on 8.4.2010 with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a
sum of Rs.2500/- before this Court on or before the returnable date.
The petitioner has accordingly deposited the said amount with this
Court.
Pursuant to the notice
issued by this Court an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the
respondent, alongwith which certain documents are annexed.
It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner has purchased property situated at
Plot No.O/3, Revenue Survey No.104, Village : Mavadi, by registered
Sale Deed dated 16.12.2000. The Dy. Collector thereafter issued
notice on 7.11.2001 which was duly served on the petitioner.
Thereafter final order was passed on 25.1.2002. However, the said
order was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore,
made an application for certified copy of the said order, firstly on
1.11.2006 and thereafter on 13.11.2006. The petitioner, however,
did not take any action in 2006 and only in 2010 after obtaining
certified copy decided to file Appeal against the said order.
However, the Challan could not be issued to the petitioner as the
Appeal that may be filed would be barred by limitation.
Heard Mr.Rajesh K. Shah,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Manisha
Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
No.3.
It appears from the
pleadings of the parties that the petitioner has taken two different
stands, firstly in the application dated 19.3.2010, he has stated
that the certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner
on 1.11.2006. However, because of the weak financial condition of
the petitioner, 25% amount of deficit stamp duty could not be
deposited and hence Appeal/Reference could not be filed challenging
the said final order. However, in the memo of the petition the
petitioner has stated that the petitioner had already applied for
certified copy before the respondent authority on 1.11.2006 and same
has been delivered by the Dy. Collector on 1.11.2006. Papers were
given to the advocate for filing proceedings before the authority.
The advocate has not filed Appeal before the authority and,
therefore, the petitioner has suffered. Thus, two different stands
are taken by the petitioner. The fact still remains that the
certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on or
about 1.11.2006 and till 2010 no Appeal/Reference was filed by the
petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The Dy.
Collector has, therefore, rightly sent the communication dated
30.3.2010 stating therein that since the Appeal/Reference is filed
beyond the period of limitation, the same is not maintainable.
Since there is no
explanation for the delay of four years and the explanation tendered
is also contradictory and not acceptable to the Court, there is no
question of entertaining this petition wherein the said order is
challenged by the petitioner. The Court, therefore, without going
into the merits of the matter, dismisses this petition only on the
ground of delay and latches. The respondent authority has no power
to condone the delay of four years and hence there is no infirmity
or illegality in sending the communication dated 30.3.2010.
In view of above
discussion the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. The
amount of Rs.2500/- deposited with the Court is ordered to be
remitted to the respondent forthwith.
(K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top