Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/22054/2005 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22054 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KANIYALAL
SUNDARDAS CHANDANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR OF STAMP & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NIRAL R MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
02.08.2004 passed by the respondent-authority, whereby, the
petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.81,443/- towards
deficit stamp duty, including Rs.250/- by way of penalty and also the
subsequent Notice dated 22.09.2005, issued u/s.152 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased a property vide
registered sale deed dated 02.01.1996. Subsequently, the said
property was bifurcated into three different parcels of land and sold
to three different persons by executing individual sale deeds.
3. A
Notice dated 16.02.2000 was served upon the petitioner by respondent
no.1 in respect of one of the sale deeds executed in respect of one
of the parcels of land by which the petitioner was directed to remain
present before the authority on a particular date.
4. It
is the case of the petitioner that on account of ill-health, he could
not remain present before the authority on the said date. Thereafter,
respondent no.1-authority passed the order dated 02.08.2004 directing
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.81,443 towards deficit stamp
duty, including penalty of Rs.250/-. Pursuant to the passing of the
said order, Notice dated 22.09.2005 u/s.152 of the Bombay Land
Revenue Code was served upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order passed by the respondent-authority, the present
petition has been preferred.
5. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The matter is of the year 2005. However, till today, no
reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-authorities. It
appears from the record that on the date fixed for hearing by
respondent no.1-authority, the petitioner could not remain present on
account of his ill-health The respondent no.1-authority, without
giving any other opportunity to the petitioner to present his case,
straightaway passed the impugned order dated 02.08.2004. Thus, the
impugned order has been passed ex-parte and without observing the
principles of natural justice.
6. In
view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.08.2004 passed by the
respondent-authority as also the subsequent Notice dated 22.09.2005
issued u/s.152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code are quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent-authority for
consideration afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner to present his case. The petitioner is directed to deposit
an amount of Rs.2500/- (Two thousand five hundred only) with the
respondent-authority by way of costs. It is clarified that this Court
has quashed the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority
only on the ground that it was passed ex-parte and not on merits and
therefore, while considering the issue afresh, the
respondent-authority shall not be influenced by the fact that this
Court has quashed its earlier order and shall decide the same on its
merits and in accordance with law. With the above observations, the
petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above
extent. Direct service permitted.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top