SCA/27259/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27259 of 2007 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 ? ========================================================= ISMAILBHAI D THARADARA - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR BHARAT JANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR VH OZA GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 28/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Mr. Oza, learned AGP waives the service of rule on behalf of respondents. SCA/27259/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT 1.0 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 22.01.2003 and order passed by respondent No.2 as well as the the notice issued by respondent No.4 dated 20.06.2007. 2.0 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. 3.0 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 respondent No.1 in a casual manner. It is further submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on the basis of which he has valued the property in question at much higher rate and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.72,648/- including fine is required to be paid SCA/27259/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT to the respondent-authorities. It is also submitted by him that the respondent authorities have not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying the market value. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondent Authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.0 In support of his submission, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions, 1) “Pradhyaumanbhai Mohanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in 2003 (1) GLR 454, 2) “Mayurkumar J. Patel Vs. Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot” reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2252. 5.0 In the above decisions, it is held by this Court that without giving any reasons and SCA/27259/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT without applying mind towards any of the defences raised by the petitioner therein, in printed format the impugned orders have been passed wherein some gaps have been filled in and one and two sentences have been added. It is also held by this Court that it is the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify its say for higher market value for the land in question, and thus, the order in question was quashed and set aside by the Court in the aforesaid decision. 6.0 The respondent No.1 has passed final order on 22.01.2003. The application preferred under Section 32-B of the Bombay Stamp Act against the aforesaid order was not within the limitation. 7.0 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order is in printed form and only some gaps have been filled up by the authorities without giving any reasons. This clearly shows total non- SCA/27259/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT application of mind on the part of the respondent-Authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8.0 In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 22.01.2003 and order passed by respondent No.2 as well as the the notice issued by respondent No.4 dated 20.06.2007 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, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. (M.D. Shah,J.) Umesh/