Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13371/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13371 of 2009
=========================================================
DHARMESHKUMAR
VALJIBHAI KANKASANIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 19/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2009 passed by respondent no. 1,
whereby respondent no. 1 has refused to issue challan in favour of
the petitioner on the ground of delay and also the order dated
30.09.2002 passed by respondent no.2-, whereby the petitioner has
been directed to pay an amount of Rs.29,630/- towards deficit stamp
duty.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased part of a
plot being Plot no. 11/3 of Plot no. 8, including the constructed
industrial shed, bearing Revenue Survey No. 384 of Rajkot City,
admeasuring 57-7 sq. yards, vide registered sale deed dated
12.11.2001.
2.1. It
is the case of the petitioner that he was unaware as to
at what stage the document, which was pending under the proceedings
of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, was lying. However,
respondent no. 2-authority vide order dated 30.09.2002 directed the
petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.29,630/- towards deficit stamp
duty. It is further the case of the petitioner that he came to know
of the passing of the said order only in the year 2009 when an
inquiry in that regard was made by him.
2.2. Against
the said order, the petitioner preferred an application before
respondent no. 1-authority for obtaining challan by paying 25% of the
amount of deficit stamp duty for filing an appeal. However,
respondent no.1-authority, rejected the said application vide order
dated 11.11.2009 on the ground of delay. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the
documents on record, it appears that the impugned order was passed in
the year 2002 and the application for filing an appeal against the
said order was preferred only in the year 2009. As per the provisions
of the Bombay Stamp Act, an application for filing an appeal has to
be preferred within a period of 60/90 days from the date of passing
of the order.
3.1. In
the present case, such application has been preferred after a period
of more than seven years. No explanation, much less any satisfactory
explanation, has come from the petitioner as regards the said delay
caused in filing the application.
3.2. Apart
from that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has
taken any action after the year 2002 for return of the documents. In
view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, that respondent
no.1-authority was completely justified in rejecting the application
of the petitioner and hence I find no reason to interfere with same
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top