Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1206/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1206 of 2010
=========================================================
KISHORBHAI
PRAMATLAL PUJARA LEGAL HEIR AND REPRESENTATIVE OF - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RAJESH K SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ASHVIN J POPAT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR R.A. RINDANI, AGP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition is directed against the order passed by respondent no.1
dated 08.10.2006, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has
been dismissed on the ground of delay and further to direct the
authority concerned to decide the appeal on merits.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner had purchased an immovable
property, situated in Rajkot District, by way of a registered sale
deed dated 28.06.2000. In connection with the said transaction,
respondent no.1 had issued Notice to the petitioner on 23.08.2001
calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,290/- towards
deficit stamp duty, including penalty of Rs.250/-. The petitioner
gave his reply to the said Notice.
3. Pursuant
thereto, respondent no.1 passed the order dated 22.03.2002 directing
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,290/- towards deficit
stamp duty, inclusive of penalty of Rs.250/-.
4. Against
the said order dated 22.03.2002, the petitioner filed an appeal on
20.06.2002 before the appellate authority, after making payment of
the requisite amount, as required under the provisions of the Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958. However, the said appeal came to be rejected vide
order dated 08.10.2006 on the ground on delay.
5. It
is the case of the petitioner that he was not served wtih the copy of
the order dated 08.10.2006 passed by the appellate authority and that
he came to know about the same only when he had made an inquiry in
that regard in the office of the respondent-authority on 21.01.2010.
On 21.01.2010 the petitioner received a Notice dated 05.01.2010
issued u/s.118 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.
5. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.
6. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The respondent-authority has rejected the appeal preferred
by the petitioner on the ground of delay and not on merits.
Therefore, in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate that the
appeal preferred by the petitioner is decided by the
respondent-authority on merits and in accordance with law rather than
rejecting the same on technical grounds.
7. Thus,
without entering into the merits of the case, the
respondent-authority is directed to hear the appeal preferred by the
petitioner and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible and after condoning the delay caused in
filing the same. As the respondent-authority has to hear the appeal
after a long period, a cost of Rs.2500/- is imposed on the
petitioner, which shall be deposited by him with the
respondent-authority before the appeal is heard. The said amount
shall be credited in the account of the Government Exchequer. With
the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed
of.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top