Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14288/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14288 of
2010
=========================================================
SAI
LAND DEVELOPERS THRO' PARTNER AMBALAL SHAMJIBHAI PATEL -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard learned
Counsel for the parties, for the final disposal of the petition.
2. Petitioner is
aggrieved by an order dated 27.08.2010, passed by the Chief
Controller Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar, whereby the appeal of the
petitioner was not entertained on merits, considering it as time
barred.
3. Petitioner, before
the appellate authority, challenged an order dated 28.04.2010, passed
by the Deputy Collector, demanding additional stamp duty of
Rs.4,73,297/-, on a Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner.
Petitioner, therefore, preferred appeal against the said order, on
28.07.2010. He also deposited 25 per cent of the disputed stamp duty.
4. It is the case of
the petitioner that the appeal was not belated. It was filed within
90 days, from the date of the order under challenge in the appeal.
In any case, it was well within 90 days, from the date of the
communication of the order. The petitioner had also, by way of
abundant caution, prayed for the condonation of delay.
5. I am, therefore, of
the opinion that the appellate authority ought to have considered the
appeal of the petitioner, on merits. Primarily, it was not beyond 90
days, considering from the date of receipt of communication. At the
very worst, it was a delay of one day. Such a substantial right of
the petitioner, of appeal, ought not have been denied, only on the
ground of limitation.
6. In the result,
impugned order dated 27.08.2010, passed by the Chief Controller
Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar, is SET ASIDE. The
appellate authority shall ENTERTAIN the appeal of the
petitioner on MERITS and dispose of the same, in
accordance with law. Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top