Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1003420/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10034 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
BABUBHAI
LAXMANBHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION DEPT. & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BALRAM D JAIN for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS BHAVIKA KOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 08/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Ms. Kotecha learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the
respondents.
With
the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the
matter is finally heard.
The
petitioners by way of this petition has challenged the order dated
28.05.2003 at Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the
Stamp Duty is assessed at Rs.1,11,460/- plus penalty of Rs.250/-,
total Rs.1,11,710/-.
Heard
Mr.Jain learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Kotecha, learned
AGP for the respondents.
Ms.
Kotecha learned AGP under the instruction of GP states that the
State Government has taken decision to reconsider all cases, where
the Deputy Collector has exercised the power in mechanical manner,
without considering the facts and circumstances, and she submitted
that the implementation of the order shall not be made, and she has
no objection, if the order is quashed and the matter is restored to
Deputy Collector, but the petitioners may remain present before the
Deputy Collector within some reasonable time for showing cause as to
why the assessment could not be made.
The
reference may be made to the statement made in the proceedings of
Special Civil Application No. 3926 of 2006 and allied matter.
In
view of the above, impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector
dated 28.05.2003 is quashed and set aside with the direction that
the matter shall stand restored to the Deputy Collector. The
petitioners shall submit reply within four weeks. The Deputy
Collector shall decided the matter afresh after giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.
It
is hardly required to be clarified that when the order is quashed,
there shall not be any recovery until afresh order is passed by the
Deputy Collector. In the event, if petitioners are aggrieved by
afresh order, which may be passed by the Deputy Collector, the
petitioners may resort to remedy as may be permissible in law.
The
petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute
accordingly. D.S.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top
