SCA/5659/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5659 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 ? ========================================================= VASANTKUMAR DANMAL AGRAWAL & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MP PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. Mr Umang H Oza, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 20/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. 1. By way of this petition, the present SCA/5659/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Nanpura, Surat dated 6.6.2003 and the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr U.H. Oza, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Surat Division Surat 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 the he has valued the property in question at much higher rate and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.4,81,600/- with fine of Rs.250/- and further fine of Rs.1000/- under section 39(1) of the Stamp Act was required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has, without application of mind, considered the power of attorney as if the power of attorney is a sale deed. SCA/5659/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal but the authority has not considered the said application and rejected the appeal. 5. The respondent Dy.Collector has passed final order on 6.6.2003. Though the petitioners appeared before the respondent No.2 and pointed out the correct facts with regard to the dispute, without considering the reality, respondent no.2 has considered the Power of Attorney as Sale Deed and passed the order. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay on 30.8.2003. Instead of hearing the appeal, respondent no.1 has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay without giving any opportunity of hearing after a lapse of 4 years of filing the appeal. 6. So far as condonation of delay in filing the appeal is concerned, it is well settled position in law that refusing to condone delay may result into meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of grave injustice. Ordinarily, SCA/5659/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT delay should be condoned, if sufficient cause is shown. This view is reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353. Again, this court (Coram: K S Jhaveri, J.) in the case of Arvind Babulal Adalja v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2006) 12 GHJ, held that the appellate authority should have decided the application for condonation of delay and the appeal should have been heard on its merits and the delay caused in that matter was condoned and the appeal was directed to be heard by the appellate authority on merits. 7. On perusing the records and having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and in view of the above decisions, I am of the view that this petition is required to be remanded to the appellate authority for hearing it on merits. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing the appeal before the appellate authority is condoned. Respondent No.1-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is directed to hear the appeal of the petitioners in accordance with law and shall dispose of SCA/5659/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT the same as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp