Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/228/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 228 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
GITABEN
JAGANNATH DAVE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
CONTROLLING REVENUE & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SANDEEP N BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1
- 2.
Mr U H Oza, AGP for Respondent(s)
:
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 10/01/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the present petitioner
has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Dy. Collector,
Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Rajkot Rural, Rajkot dated
29.12.2001 and the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Stamp Duty Valuation Office,
Gandhinagar.
Heard
the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr U A Oza, learned AGP
for the respondents.
2. It
is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without
giving any details regarding determination of market value, in
printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation,
Rajkot Rural, Rajkot in a casual manner.
It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain
principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he
has passed the impugned order on the basis of which the respondent
No.1 has valued the property in question at a higher rate and
therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.51,260/- and fine of Rs.250/- was
required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by him
that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the
petitioner has purchased the plots in question by paying
Rs.3,80,000/- at the market value and the respondent authority has
also not considered the market value as per Jantri decided by the
State. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent
authorities is required to be quashed and set aside.
3. In
support of his submission, the Learned
advocate has placed reliance on the following
decisions of this court:
(1) 2003
(1) GLR 454 vol.44 (Pradhyaumanbhai Mohanlal Patel v. State of
Gujarat
(2) 2006
(3) GLR 2252 (Mayurkumar J Patel v. Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation Department, Rajkot)
In
the above decisions, it is held by this court that without giving any
reasons and without applying mind towards any of the defences raised
by the petitioner therein, in printed format the impugned order has
been passed wherein some gaps have been filled in and one and two
sentences have been added. It is also held by this court that it is
the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify its say for
higher market value for the land in question, and thus, the order in
question was quashed and set aside by the court in the aforesaid
decision.
4. The
respondent Deputy Collector has passed final order on 29.12.2001.
The Appeal of the petitioner was rejected by respondent
No.1-Appellate authority on 26.11.2007 on the ground of delay.
5. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the
impugned order is in printed form and only some gaps have been
filled up by the authorities without giving any reasons. This
clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the
respondent- Authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned
orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
6. In
the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated
29.12.2001 and 26.11.2007 are quashed and set aside. Consequently,
the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for taking fresh decision
and for passing a speaking order as per the Act, after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is
directed to dispose of the matter accordingly, within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[M.D.
SHAH, J.]
msp
Top