Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7472/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7472 of 2010
=========================================================
NIKESH
INDRAVADAN MODI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UMANG K CHOKSI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AMIT PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 30/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.
According
to petitioner, the agreement to sell No.1157 was executed on 3rd
April 1996 for the property of 887 Yards land and 210 Yards
construction in Sub-plot No.34 of T.P. Scheme No.3/5 (varied) village
Chhadavad/Kocharab, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, on 21st May
2010, after a period of 14 years, the attachment printed notice
received and the petitioner approached respondent No.3, he issued
Chalan and thereafter filed application on 29th May 2010
to get material. Respondent No.3 supplied copy of printed notice
dated 28th April 2009 and order dated 5th
November 2009 on 29th May 2010 and so the petitioner came
to know about the proceedings on 29th May 2010.
The
petitioner filed this petition to quash only by way of ground that
there is no any provision in the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and Bombay
Stamp Determination of Market Value Rules, 1984 to get the deficit
stamp duty after a period of 13 years without explaining the delay as
well as law, on the registered agreement to sell in which the
possession was not given and the sale-deed was not done. Page 11
Annexure ‘E’ is the order dated 3rd November 2009.
Learned
AGP Mr. Patel submitted that this order is passed by respondent No.3
Deputy Collector, against which, under Sec.53(1), appeal is
available to petitioner as specified in order itself.
Therefore,
let petitioner may approach the appellate authority respondent
No.2, therefore, this petition may not be entertained only on the
ground that remedy is available to petitioner under Special Act,
therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
I
have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. Recently,
the Apex Court has considered the question when statutory remedy is
available to petitioner, then, ordinarily, High Court should not
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in case of Rajkumar Shivre v. Assistant Director, Directorate
of Enforcement and Another reported in 2010 (4) SCC 772.
In
light of these facts, specifically remedy is available as
incorporated in order itself, Page 12, then, only on that ground,
present petition is not entertained by this Court as petitioner is
having alternative effective statutory remedy to approach respondent
No.2.
Therefore,
present petition is accordingly disposed of as not entertained by
this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
Let
petitioner may approach the respondent No.2 within a period of one
month and thereafter, respondent No.2 may decide it in accordance
with law within a period of two months.
Direct
service is permitted.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top