Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3500/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3500 of 2010
======================================
DILIPKUMAR
N VYAS
Versus
CHIEF
CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & ORS
======================================
Appearance :
MR
SANDEEP N BHATT for Petitioner
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for
Respondents
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 23/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1 The
petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the Order passed by the
respondent No. 2 on 30.01.2002.
2 This
Court has issued notice for final disposal on 31.03.2010 and the
Respondent was directed to file an affidavit clarifying therein as
to on which date and how the order dated 30.01.2002 was issued and
served on the petitioner. It was also directed that necessary
evidence along with affidavit be produced on record with the above
effect.
3 Pursuant
to the said order, an affidavit-in-reply is filed on 13.04.2010.
4 Heard
Mr. Sandeep N. Bhatt, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
5 It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased
property by executing the sale deed which has been registered at
Serial No. 6650 on 30.11.2000 by paying the requisite stamp duty.
On 30.01.2002 final order was passed, which was never received by
the petitioner before receipt of the Japti notice. Japti notice
was issued by the respondent No.4 on 10.11.2009. The petitioner
thereafter applied for obtaining certified copy of the final order
on 24.11.2009 before respondent No.2 and received the certified
copy. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application asking for
Challan to file Appeal/Reference before the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority. The petitioner was informed that such
Appeal/Reference cannot be entertained as the same being barred by
limitation. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present
petition before this Court.
5 The
main contention of Mr. Sandeep Bhatt, learned Advocate, appearing for
the petitioner is that when the Order impugned in this petition is
not at all received by the petitioner, there is no question of
challenging the same earlier. He has further submitted that on
receipt of the notice issued before passing of the final order, one
application was filed and time was sought for producing relevant
documents. Thereafter, straightaway the order was passed without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore,
submitted that as soon as the certified copy of the order is
received, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for the
purpose of issuing Challan so as to enable the petitioner to file
Appeal or Reference which was also turned down. He has further
submitted that there was non-compliance of Rule 7(4) of the Rules
to the Determination of Fair Market Values. No comparable sale
instance was taken into consideration by the authorities while
passing the impugned order, which caused grave injustice to the
petitioner. He therefore submitted that the petition be allowed
and the prayers sought in the petition be granted in the interest of
justice.
6 The
affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. It is
stated that the Notice dated 12.10.2001 as contemplated under Rule-4
of the Bombay Stamp Act was issued and the petitioner wrote a letter
asking for time to produce relevant documents. Accordingly, the
matter was adjourned to 29.11.2001 and the petitioner was informed
about the next date of hearing. On 29.11.2001, the petitioner did
not turn up and, hence, the order was passed on 30.01.2002 which was
sent by ordinary post. In respect of this, necessary abstract of the
Register was also produced.
7 Mr.
Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP, therefore submitted that, though,
on 29.11.2001 the petitioner was asked to remain present he did not
remain present and hence the order was passed on 30.01.2002. The
stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that
the hearing was fixed on 29.11.2001, and not only that he did not
remain present, but he never inquired thereafter as to what happened
in his case. This itself shows that the averments made in the
petition are not correct and despite having knowledge about passing
of the order, the petitioner did not bother about it and take the
shelter of Japti Notice which was issued only on 10.11.2009. Even
before that, in 2004, a Notice was issued to the petitioner giving
an opportunity to avail the benefit of amenity scheme of the
government. Even on that date also, the petitioner was aware about
the passing of the order by the Deputy Collector. In this view of
the matter, since the petitioner was aware about the order passed on
30.01.2002, no action was taken by the petitioner till 24.11.2009
and the matter is, therefore, delayed by about 08 years, which cannot
be condoned. The challenge to the impugned order dated 30.11.2002 is
unsustainable and, hence, the petition is required to be dismissed.
8 Having
heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and having gone
through the orders passed by the authorities below, the Court is of
the view that the petition is filed after 08 years from the date of
passing the impugned order and hence the merit of the issues raised
in this petition cannot be gone into now by the court. The petition
is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.
(
K. A. PUJ, J.)
pnnair
Top
