Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13941/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13941 of 2011
=========================================================
AMRUTBHAI
BABALDAS PATEL & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 29/09/2011
ORAL ORDER
Heard
Mr.Mehul H. Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioners. It is
submitted by him that the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 has not
been passed in consonance with the provisions of Section 53(A) of the
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, inasmuch as before exercising power under the
said provisions of law, the Controlling Authority must come to a
conclusion that the order of the Deputy Collector is erroneous and,
further, the material on record, upon which the determination of the
stamp duty has been done, should be supplied to the petitioners. It
is submitted that in the present case, no documents have been
supplied, even though in the reply to the notice, the petitioners
have specifically raised this point.
The
learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the
notice dated 11.08.2008 has been issued after determining the market
value, however, how and on what basis the market value has been
determined, has not been disclosed. It is contended that the
Calculation-sheet supplied to the petitioners reveals that the market
value has been fixed on the Jantri rates for commercial property, as
prevailing in the year 1999. However, the Jantri can only be one of
the relevant documents, but the market value must be determined by
considering other relevant material and factors as well, which has
not been done in the present case.
It
is further submitted that the property in question is an open,
non-agricultural land that is being used for breeding of horses by
the petitioners, which is not a commercial activity.
In
support of the above submissions, the learned advocate for the
petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in
Nandadevi
Dineshkumar Sharma Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and others
reported
in
2006 (3) GLR 2535.
Notice
returnable on 17.10.2011.
In
addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also
permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top