SCA/605/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 605 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 ? ========================================================= SAGAR ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR APURVA DAVE GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 23/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Mr. Dave, learned AGP waives the service of rule on behalf of respondents. SCA/605/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 1.0 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondent No.1 dated 23/24.04.2001 and 27.11.2007. 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.1,34,400/- and fine of Rs.250/- is required to be paid to the respondent-Authority. It is also submitted by him that the respondent Authority SCA/605/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT 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 Authority 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 without applying mind towards any of the defences raised by the petitioner therein, in printed SCA/605/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 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 Authority 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 23/24.04.2001. 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 orders are in printed form and only some gaps have been filled up by the Authority without giving any reasons. This clearly shows total non- application of mind on the part of the respondent-Authority. Under these circumstances, SCA/605/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT the impugned orders are 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 dated 23/24.04.2001 and 27.11.2007 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/