Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4197/2008 2/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4197 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 ?
=========================================================
JAIN
PRAKASHCHANDRA GERILAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JV JAPEE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR UMANG OZA, AGP for Respondents
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 07/03/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.Umang Oza, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondents.
2. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation Department, Himatnagar, Rajkot, and the order dated
11.12.2007 passed by the Chief Controller, Stamp Duty Valuation
Department, Gandhinagar, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively.
3. Heard
the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Oza, learned AGP for
the respondents.
4. It
is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned
order passed by the respondent No.1 authority is a printed one and
non speaking order which reveals total non application of mind and
that unreasonably excessive market value has been fixed for the
disputed property by the respondent authority. According to the
learned advocate, no reasons have been assigned for enhancement in
the market value of the property than what is referred to in the sale
deed. It has also been contended by the learned advocate that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing
the impugned order. It has also been contended that the relevant
guidelines have also not been followed by the respondent authority
and therefore, the decision taken by the authority for arriving at a
higher market value is absolutely arbitrary in nature. It is finally
contended that the respondent authority has fixed the valuation of
the property ignoring the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value
of Property) Rules, 1984 as also the guidelines provided by the
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and, therefore, the respondent authority can
fix the valuation of the property using different yardsticks which
would tantamount to discrimination. It is submitted by learned
advocate that in a casual manner the respondent authority has fixed
the market value of the property in question at a higher price and
therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs.26,710/- with fine of Rs.250/-
was required to be paid to the authorities and accordingly notice
was sent to the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the
respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner
has purchased the property in question by paying the market value
prevalent, but the authority has not considered the same as per the
Jantri decided by the State. Therefore it is prayed that the
decisions of the respondent authorities are required to be quashed
and set aside.
5. In
support of his submission, learned advocate has placed reliance on
the following decisions:
(i) [(2006)12
GHJ 533 ? (Vinaybhai P.Patel v. State of Gujarat)];
(ii) [(2006)12
GHJ 646 ? (Manubhai Vaghjibhai Dabhi
v.
State of Gujarat and anr.)]; and
(iii)[(2006)12
GHJ 538 ? (A.P.M.C., Patan v. State of Gujarat and anr.]; and
(iv)
2006(2) GLR 1735 ? (New Kalindi Co.op.Housing Society Ltd. v. State
of Gujarat and ors.).
6. As
can be seen from the aforesaid decisions, this Court has time and
again rendered decisions for quashing and setting aside the
printed/cyclostyled type orders and non speaking orders by holding
that it is the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify
its say for higher market value for the land in question. In the
instant case, it is clear that the impugned order cannot be sustained
in the eye of law. Reference in this connection may also be had to
the decision rendered in the case of Bal Nalkantha Khedoor Mandal
v. State of Gujarat, decided on 26th July 1999 in
Special Civil Application No.1731 of 199 (Coram: Hon’ble
K.G.Balakrishnan, CJ & Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.D.Dave).
7. Having
considered the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons as discussed
above, in my considered opinion, the impugned orders are passed in
breach of the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984 as they
are thoroughly non speaking orders and no reasons have been assigned.
8. In
that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation
Department, Himatnagar, Rajkot, and the order dated 11.12.2007 passed
by the Chief Controller, Stamp Duty Valuation Department,
Gandhinagar, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively are hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2
for taking a fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per
the Act, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984 and after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
Direct
service is permitted.
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
Sreeram.
Top