1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 590/2009. Empreiteiros Gerais Pvt. Ltd., Office at Anand Bhavan, Old Station Road, Margao, Goa, represented by its lawful attorney Mr. Devidas Sadanand Kudchadkar, R/o House No. 593, Chawkeada, Curchorem, Goa. … Petitioner V/s 1. State of Goa, Through the Additional Collector- I, South Goa District at Margao, Goa. 2. Mr. Anthony Fernandes alias Antonio Fernandes alias Antonio Everesto Fernandes 3. Mrs. Maria Julia D'Cunha e Fernandes, both r/o House No. 706, Bondir, Cortalim, Goa. … Respondents. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1. 2 None for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though served. Coram : A. P. Lavande, J. Judgment Reserved on : 14.01.2011. Judgment Pronounced on : 17.01.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1. None appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though served. 2. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 passed by the Addl. Collector – I, South Goa District at Margao and order dated 7.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama in Stamp Appeal No. 2/2008/B, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Addl. Collector. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition 3 are as under: The petitioner, a company set up under the Company's Act 1956 purchased property admeasuring 17,571 sq. metres comprised of survey Nos. 43/1 (part), 43/2, 43/4 and 43/5 of Cortalim village in Mormugao Taluka, by two different Sale Deeds dated 10.8.2006 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 5. The petitioner purchased the said properties from respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Prior to the purchase, the petitioner was the lessee of the property pursuant to a registered Lease Deed dated 26.2.1971, the rent payable under the deed was Rs. 5,500/- per year and the lease was initially for a period of 30 years with an option to the petitioner to renew the lease for a further period of 30 years. The petitioner exercised this option and accordingly the lease stood renewed till 31.12.2030. Clause 8 of the Lease Deed also gave an option to the petitioner to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. 7. The Sub-Registrar before whom the Sale Deeds were presented for registration referred the same to the Collector of South 4 Goa under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, to decide on the valuation of the Sale Deed. The petitioner filed his reply before the Addl. Collector – I and stated that there was no under valuation. The Addl. Collector – I called for sale statistics from the Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka who by communication dated 28.2.2007 submitted the sale statistics and referred to three sale deeds by which plots admeasuring 200 to 300 sq. metres were sold at the rates ranging from Rs 700/- to 1591/- per sq. metre. In further reply, the petitioner pointed out to the Addl. Collector that the property which was sold under the sale deeds were low lying land which get flooded during high tide and monsoon. 8. The Addl. Collector- I, South Goa, Margao by judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 after placing reliance upon sale statistics furnished by Mamlatdar as well as the two sale instances registered before the Sub- Registrar Mormugao called upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs. 1,50,400/-. The Addl. Collector fixed the market rate of the property sold at Rs. 800/- per sq. metre. 9. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da- 5 Gama in terms of Section 47- A (4) of the Act. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama by judgment and order dated 7.5.2009 dismissed the said appeal. 10. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Addl. Collector. 11. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities have failed to appreciate that the property purchased by the two sale deeds by the petitioner were leased to the petitioner by registered Lease Deed dated 20.2.1971 and they had option to purchase the same in terms of Clause 8 of the Lease Deed for consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and therefore, the finding recorded by the Addl. Collector and confirmed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama that the market rate of the property sold was Rs. 800/- per sq. metre is patently unsustainable in law. 12. He further submitted that the Addl. Collector has arrived at the market rate of Rs. 800/- per sq. metre on the basis of the report submitted by the Mamlatdar which was actually incorrect, without 6 even verifying the factual situation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Addl. Collector has not given any reason for fixing the price of the property sold at Rs. 800/- per sq. metre and therefore, the judgment passed by the Addl. Collector and the order passed by the Appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. He further submitted that the Sale Deeds on which reliance is placed by the Mamlatdar, although were in respect of the plots situated in Cortalim, the same could not be compared with the property sold in as much as by the two sale deeds having an area admeasuring 17,571 sq. metres. He further submitted that the property sold could not have been compared with the sale deed plots relied upon by the Mamlatdar and in any case before fixing the market rate of the property sold. The Addl. Collector ought to have given reason for fixing the market rate after placing reliance on the Sale Deeds relied upon and after considering whether they were comparable or not. According to Mr. Diniz, the Addl. Collector has not given any reason for arriving at a figure of Rs. 800/- per sq. metre and the appellate Court has fallen into same error while upholding the judgment passed by the Addl. Collector. He, therefore, submitted that both the orders be set aside and the matter be remanded to the 7 Addl. Collector for fresh order after hearing the petitioner. 14. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order. 15. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 16. Perusal of the order passed by the Addl. Collector discloses that after referring to the factual aspects of the case, he chose to rely upon the report of the Mamlatdar in which it was stated that major portion of the land was plain land and all infrastructural facilities and free access to the site was available and that the land was used for commercial purpose. He came to the conclusion that the price of Rs. 800/- per sq. metre would be reasonable price. Bare perusal of the order passed by the Addl. Collector discloses that no cogent reason have been given by the Addl. Collector for arriving at the figure of Rs. 800/- per sq. metre. 17. According to the petitioner, since the property sold was leased to them, they had option to purchase the property for Rs. 8 80,000/-. Moreover, the sale deed plots were not in respect of comparable lands. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Addl. Collector while passing the impugned order. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that not only judicial but also administrative order must be supported by reasons. [see 2010 AIR SCW 7184, Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd & Ors.] The Addl. Collector has not disclosed the reason for arriving at the figure of Rs. 800/- per sq. metre. By the impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector, the civil rights of the petitioners are affected in as much as the petitioner is ordered to pay additional stamp duty of Rs. 1,50,400/-. This being the position, in my considered opinion, the judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Appellate Court which also confirms the finding given by the Addl. Collector also deserves to be quashed and set aside for the very same reason. 18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders of the Addl. Collector-I, South Goa District , Margao and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama dated 12.5.2008 and 7.5.2009 respectively are quashed and set aside and the matter is 9 remanded to the Addl. Collector -I, South Goa District, Margao who shall after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order after giving reasons in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. 19. The petitioner either personally or through his representative or advocate shall appear before the Addl. Collector, South Goa District, Margao on 15.2.2011 at 11.00 a.m. 20. The Addl. Collector shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.4.2011. 21. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. MF/-