SCA/6928/2008 1/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6928 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 ? ========================================================= VANITABEN DHANJIBHAI LUMBHANI - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1, Ms Bhavika Kotecha, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 16/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Learned AGP
waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
1. By
way of this petition, the present petitioner has
challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation Department, Rajkot dated 22.4.2008.
Heard the
learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the
respondents.
2. It is
submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without
giving any details regarding determination of market value, in
printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation, Rajkot in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that
after taking into consideration certain principles regarding
determining the market value of the property, he has passed the
impugned order on the basis of which he has valued the property in
question at an excessively exorbitant rate and therefore, deficit
Stamp Duty of Rs.86,760/- and fine of Rs.250/- was required to be
paid to the authorities. 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
which was prevailing at the relevant time. It is also submitted by
the learned advocate that as the petitioners were not served the
final order of the respondent No.1, there was delay in preferring
the appeal. However, the application preferred by the petitioner was
rejected on the ground that the appeal is not within the limitation
period.
Therefore,
it is prayed that the decision of the respondent- Authorities are
required to be quashed and set aside.
3. In
support of his submission, the learned Advocate has placed reliance
on ý (i) (2006) 12 GHJ 533 (Vinaybhai P. Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat), (ii) (2006) 12 GHJ 646 (Manubhai Vaghijibhai Dabhi Vs.
State of Gujarat and Anr.), (iii) 2006 (12) GHJ 538 (A.P.M.C., Patan
Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.) and (iv) 2006 (2) GLR 1735 (New
Kalindi Karnavati Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors.).
4. It
can be seen from the aforesaid authorities, this Court has time and
again rendered decisions for quashing and setting aside the
cyclostyled type order 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 property / land in question. In the
instance case, it is clear that the impugned order does not even
recite the basis or calculation for arriving at the market value, and
therefore, 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 Vs. State of Gujarat
decided on 26th July, 1999 in Special Civil
Application No.1731 of 1999 (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr.
K.G. Balkrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Dave).
5. Having
considered the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons as discussed
above, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is passed in
breach of the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984 as it
is thoroughly non speaking order and no reasons have been assigned.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 22.4.2008 and 26.3.2003 passed by respondent No.1 are
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for
taking fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per the
Act, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute with no order as to
costs.
[M.D.
SHAH, J.]
msp