SCA/4430/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4430 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 ? ========================================================= T J AGRO FRTILIZERS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YN RAVANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR Umang H Oza, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 16/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr Y N Ravani, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr Umang H Oza, learned AGP for the respondents. SCA/4430/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Division No.2, Vadodara dated 8/13.2.2008. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by this court, (Coram: Jayant Patel, J,) in OLR No.124 of 2007 in Company Petition No.229 of 2001, (Annexure 'B' to the petition), the Sale Deed is executed by the petitioner and according to the above referred order of this court, the petitioner has paid stamp duty of Rs.3,62,600/-. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after presenting the Sale Deed before the respondent No.2, respondent No.2 refused to register the same. Thereupon the petitioner received a letter dated 4.12.2007 from the Official Liquidator (Annexure I to the petition) calling upon the petitioner to pay an additional stamp duty of Rs.5,04,000/- on the Conveyance Deed. This communication was addressed as per the instructions of the Sub-Registrar (Stamps). After receiving the above referred letter, the petitioner moved application before the Deputy Collector, respondent No.1 dated 20.12.2007, for revaluation of the open land. Thereupon respondent No.1 called for details from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.1.2008 and according to them, the petitioner has not produced the required documents. SCA/4430/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT 5. It is submitted by Mr Ravani, learned advocate for the petitioner that in pursuance of the demand made by respondent No.1, the petitioner has produced all the documents including the order passed by this court dated 18.10.2007. Thereupon, the petitioner received the order dated 8/13.2.2008 by which the petitioner was asked to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs.24,84,193/- on the basis of the market value assessed as Rs.5,06,97,800/-. While perusing this order, nothing is found in this order how they determined the market price of Rs.5,07,97,800/- which is, according to the petitioner, is seven times higher than the price fixed by this Court. No reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 for determining the market value as aforesaid. 6. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in spite of the order of this court dated 18.10.2007, without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty,Valuation, Vadodara in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he has passed the impugned order on the basis of which he has valued the property in question at an excessively exorbitant rate as stated above. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the plots in question by paying the market value which was prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. SCA/4430/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 7. In support of his submission, the Learned advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions of this court: (1) 2003 (1) GLR 454 vol.44 (Pradhyaumanbhai Mohanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2) 2006(3)GLR 2252 (Mayurkumar J.Patel v.Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot) In the above decisions, it is held by this court that without giving any reasons and without applying mind towards any of the defences raised by the petitioner therein, in printed format the impugned order has been passed wherein some gaps have been filled in and one or 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. 8. 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 cogent and convincing reasons. This clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent- Authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. SCA/4430/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8/13.2.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, 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 and permission to the petitioner to produce all the required documents. Respondent No. 1 is further directed to dispose of the matter accordingly, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order without being influenced by this order. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the contention that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide the market value in reference to Rule 4 read with section 32A of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. No order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp