Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4016/2010 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4016 of 2010
===================================
KAVERI
DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT LTD THRO.DIRECTOR,SHREE CHANDULAL - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
===================================
Appearance
:
MR
AMAR D MITHANI for Petitioner.
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for
Respondent No. 1.
None for Respondent No. 2.
===================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 07/04/2010
ORAL ORDER
The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the
order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority in Stamp/Appeal/Review/53-A/20/08 determining the fair
market value of the property at Rs.25,49,610 and demanding the
deficit stamp duty of Rs.47,660/-.
It
is the case of the petitioner that GSFC accepted the tender of M/s.
Earth Petrochem Enterprise, for sale of the subject land at
Rs.19,82,204/- on 06.05.2005. Immediately on 07.10.2005, the
petitioner purchased the said land by Regd. Sale Deed No.3138 from
M/s. Earth Petrochem Enterprise for Rs.10 Lacs. Thereafter, notice
was issued by the Deputy Collector under Section 32-A of the Bombay
Stamp Act. The petitioner thereafter made his submission and after
considering the said submission, the Deputy Collector passed an
order determining the fair market value of the property at
Rs.19,82,300/- and demanded the deficit stamp duty of Rs.82,765/-.
The respondent No.1 thereafter initiated proceedings under Section
53-A of the Act and issued notice on 21.06.2008. The petitioner
made his submission on 14.07.2008 and after considering the said
submission, the respondent No.1 has passed an order on 29.12.2009
determining the fair market value of the property at Rs.25,49,610/-
and demanding the deficit stamp duty of Rs.47,660/-.
It
is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
Mr.
Amar D. Mithani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the property was purchased by the erstwhile owner
from GSFC on 06.05.2001 for Rs.19,82,204/-. Immediately thereafter,
the petitioner has purchased the said property and the Deputy
Collector, after issuance of the notice, has determined the value of
the said property at Rs.19,82,300/-. He has, therefore, submitted
that the value adopted by the Deputy Collector is the fair market
value depending upon the value determined by GSFC and in view of the
provisions contained in Proviso to Section 32-A, it is not open for
the respondent No.1 to disturb the said value and adopt the fair
market value at Rs.25,49,610/-. Despite the fact that detailed
submissions were made by the petitioner before the respondent No.1
on 14.07.2008, for more than one and half year, no order was passed
and thereafter, no opportunity of personal hearing was given and
straightway, the order was passed on 29.12.2009. He has, therefore,
submitted that the order is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The respondent No.1 has himself observed in the
order that the Deputy Collector has not assigned any reason while
adopting the fair market value of the property at Rs.19,82,204/- and
hence, at the most, the order of the Deputy Collector could have
been set aside by the respondent No.1 with a direction to pass a
speaking order. Instead of adopting this course, the respondent
No.1 has straightway adopted the fair market value of the property
at Rs.25,49,610/-. Even on this ground also, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Mr.
Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the State Government on an advance copy being served to the office
of the Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that
despite the fact that the property was purchased by the erstwhile
owner from GSFC at Rs.19,82,204/-, the petitioner has purchased this
property for Rs.10,00,000/-. The Deputy Collector has, therefore,
rightly issued notice under Section 32-A of the Act for
determination of the fair market value of the property. He has
proposed to take Jantri value. However, at the time of passing the
order, after giving deduction of 30%, he has adopted the value which
is less than Jantri price. This order of the Deputy Collector was
taken in review by the respondent No.1 and determined the fair
market value as per Jantri price, after giving deduction of 30%. He
has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the respondent
No.1 is in accordance with law and it does not require any
interference by this Court while exercising its power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. He has, therefore, submitted that
the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having
considered the rival submissions and also having gone through the
order passed by the respondent No.1, the Court is of the view that
the respondent No.1 has determined the fair market value of the
property at Rs.25,49,610/- after consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case and also after considering the Jantri
price prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed. The
submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable in
view of the fact that earlier transaction entered into by the
previous owner of the property with GSFC can be considered at the
most as a distress sale and that does not reflect the fair market
value of the property. The same can not be considered as best
evidence to determine the fair market value. While proposing to
take Jantri price, the Deputy Collector has somehow granted some
more deduction which is not justifiable and hence, the respondent
No.1 has rightly taken the matter in review and after considering
all the submissions, he has determined the fair market value as per
the Jantri price which is Rs.300/- per Sq. Mtr. and after giving
deduction of 30% being large chunk of the land, he has determined
the fair market value of the property at Rs.210/- per Sq. Mtr. and
adopted the value at Rs.25,49,610/-. Thus, the order passed by the
respondent No.1 is just, fair and in accordance with the settled
legal principles. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance
in the present petition and there is no reason to disturb the said
order. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Savariya
Top