Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4017/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4017 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHADEVBHAI
POONAMCHAND KELLA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIEF
CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANKIT Y BACHANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
3,
MS MANISHA L SHAH ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Chief
Controller of Recovery, Stamp Duty Department, Government of Gujarat.
By the said order, the petitioner is required to pay deficit stamp
duty of Rs.1,84,632/- within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy
of the order, failing which, he has to pay said account with 15 %
simple interest.
2. Petitioner
had purchased the immovable property (non-agricultural land)
admeasuring 15,700 sq.mtr out of survey No.209/1 + 2 of village
Tenivada, Taluka Vadgam, Sub-district Danta of District Banaskantha
by the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2005. Under the said sale
deed, sale consideration was shown as Rs.3,00,000/-, over which,
stamp duty as per the Rules was affixed.
3. Deputy
Collector, however, was of the opinion that the duty paid by the
petitioner was inadequate. He, thereupon, after hearing the
petitioner revised the value of the said property at Rs.9,42,000/-
and by order dated 21.10.2005 directed the petitioner to pay total
stamp duty of Rs.79,128/- and after adjustment of the stamp already
paid, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.49,378/- by way of
deficit stamp duty. Order of the Deputy Collector was taken in suo
motu revision by the respondent No.1 authority. After hearing the
petitioner, said authority by the impugned order dated 30.10.2009
held that the correct market price of the land could be assessed at
Rs.31,40,000/-. Petitioner was, therefore, as already noted directed
to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,84,632/-.
4. In
the said order, the authority has observed inter alia that the land
is purchased for constructing a hotel there. Jantri rate for the area
specified in the year 1999 was Rs.200/- per sq.mt for non
agricultural land meant for commercial use. He, therefore, assessed
the market value on the basis of such Jantri and demanded deficit
stamp duty as aforesaid.
5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land is situated in
under-developed area and only small portion thereof abuts to highway.
The prices in the year 2005were not high, the Deputy Collector,
therefore, had assessed the market value for the purpose of the stamp
duty which required no further upward revision.
6. On
the other hand, learned AGP Ms.Manisha L. Shah relying upon the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and the documents
attached therewith contended that the impugned order requires no
interference. Stamp authorities have only taken into account the
government Jantri rates which were fixed in the year 1999. The land
in question abuts on national high way and was purchased for
construction of hotel.
7. Having,
thus, heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the
documents on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order
calls for no interference. Admittedly, the land admeasuring 15,700
sq.mt was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005 for the
purpose of construction of hotel. The land abuts on national highway.
Jantri rates for the land in question were taken into consideration
by the concerned authority for fixation of the stamp duty payable.
8. In
the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Notice stands discharged.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top