Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/478/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 478 of 2011
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 123 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10097 of 1998
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3345 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 478 of 2011
=========================================================
MANOR
INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
OF KHEDA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YATIN SONI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV DAVE AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 09/09/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
In
this appeal, the appellant-original petitioner challenges the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
16.12.2010 in Special Civil Application No.10097 of 1998 whereby the
learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by issuing directions.
The appellant also seeks to challenge further order dated 7.2.2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application
preferred by the appellant for review of the order dated 16.12.2010
whereby the learned Single Judge having noticed that there was no
error apparent on the face of the record, rejected the application
for review.
2. The
facts, in brief, can be summarised as under :-
The
Stamp Duty Authorities assessed the market value of the property at
Rs.22,47,80,677/- and demanded differential stamp duty of
Rs.2,28,57,942/-. This assessment was subject matter of challenge by
the appellant by filing SCA No.1290 of 1998. SCA No.1290 of 1998 was
allowed vide order dated 14.10.1998 and the order was set aside on
the ground that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity
before the assessment order was passed. The appellant was permitted
to invite the attention of the authorities to its resolution dated
27.9.1998 consequent to the order of this Court. It appears that once
again the petition was preferred being SCA No.10097 of 1998. This
petition was admitted on 26.11.1998 and while admitting the learned
Single Judge passed an order whereby by way of interim order, the
respondents were directed to extend the benefit of the scheme dated
29.7.1998 with regard to the document in question on condition that
the appellant deposits Rs.5,20,250/- as demanded by the respondents,
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner.
3. Record
reveals that, as against demand of Rs.2,28,57,942/-, the authorities
were ready and willing to settle the entire issue on payment of
Rs.5,20,250/-. In spite of this, the appellant thought it fit to
challenge the order of the authorities demanding Rs.5,20,250/-. The
learned Single Judge at the time of final hearing noticed that in
spite of interim order passed way back in 1998, the appellant failed
to deposit Rs.5,20,250/- and did not avail of the opportunity of the
Amnesty Scheme, which was in operation only upto November 1998. It is
the case of the appellant that in 1999 after the scheme got expired,
he did tender a demand draft of requisite amount, but the same was
not accepted by the authorities. However, it is undisputed that this
fact was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge even
at the time when the authorities are alleged to have refused to
accept the draft. It is also not in dispute that the demand draft of
Rs.5,20,250/- was intended to be deposited after the Amnesty Scheme
came to an end on 26.11.1998. The learned Single Judge, having
noticed all these relevant aspects, refused to grant any relief,
which to our mind was justified, and ultimately disposed of the
petition by issuing directions directing the respondent to reassess
valuation of the property in question as on the date of sale
transaction after putting the petitioner to notice and pass
appropriate order for demand of differential stamp duty.
4. It
appears that not satisfied with this order, the appellant preferred
Misc. Civil Application for review No.123 of 2011 and practically
reiterated the same contentions. The learned Single Judge rightly
rejected the review application in absence of any error apparent on
the face of the record.
5. We
are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any
error much less an error of law in rejecting the review application.
We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby
dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) to be
paid in favour of Gujarat State Legal Service Authority, within a
period of 15 days from today. The civil application also stands
dismissed.
6. A
copy of this order be forwarded to the Member Secretary, Gujarat
State Legal Services Authority for its onward compliance.
(S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.)
(J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.)
zgs/-
Top