Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15512/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15512 of 2010
=========================================================
NARSINHBHAI
MANJIBHAI MALI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SL VAISHYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 24/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Counsel
for the petitioner has filed leave note. However, I find that he is
consistently not available to argue the matters. In Special Civil
Application No.15180 of 2010, matter was placed on Board on
7.12.2010. For non-availability of the counsel for the petitioner,
it was adjourned to 21.12.2010. Again since Shri Vaishya was not
available, it was adjourned to 24.12.2010. Today, there are three
matters of Shri Vaishya for fresh admission. His leave note is
therefore ignored.
I
have perused the averments made in the petition and the documents
attached. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20th
January 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Bombay Stamp
Duty Act dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of
limitation. The petitioner purchased agricultural land by
registered sale deed dated 5th May 2001. The Stamp Duty
Authority finding that the document did not carry sufficient stamp,
passed order dated 27th August 2001 assessing the stamp
duty payable on the document of Rs.13,680/- and deducting the stamp
already paid, directed the petitioner to pay deficient stamp duty of
Rs.11,580/-. This order of the Stamp Duty authority was challenged
by filing Appeal on 19.9.2002. This appeal came to be dismissed by
the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 20th
January 2006, in which, it is stated that the appeal was preferred
beyond the period of limitation.
Admittedly,
the appeal of the petitioner was filed nearly 270 days beyond the
period of limitation. There is nothing on record to suggest that
the petitioner either sought condonation of such delay or explained
the delay in any manner. Even after the appeal was dismissed in
January 2006, for more than 4½ years, he gook no further
steps. The present petition which was filed in October 2010 is
also suffering from gross delay and laches.
Considering
all these aspects of the matter, the petition is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top