SCA/610720/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6107 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= KISHORBHAI PRABHASHANKAR RAVIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS BHAVIKA KOTECH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Kotecha, learned AGP waives notice of rule. SCA/610720/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. With the consent of learned advocate appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred the petition for challenging the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2, whereby deficit Stamp Duty is assessed at Rs.20,700/- with penalty of Rs.250/-, total Rs.20,950/-. 4. Heard Mr. Purohit for the petitioner and Ms.Kotecha, learned AGP for the respondent authority. 5. Ms. Kotecha, learned AGP under the instruction of GP states that the State Government has taken decision to reconsider all cases, where the Deputy Collector has exercised the power in mechanical manner, without considering the facts and circumstances pertaining to all document presented prior to December 2006. Additionally, learned AGP states that as the hearing was not given before exercise of the power by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, respondent No.2, the matter will be reconsidered by respondent No.2. She submitted that the petitioner may appear before the respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. 6. As the document is presented prior to cutoff date, the present case would be covered in the general policy and the declaration made on SCA/610720/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT behalf of the State Government, which has also been recorded in Special Civil Application No.10177 of 2008, decided on 08.08.2008. 7. In view of the above declaration made on behalf of the State Government, the impugned order dated 31.12.2007 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass fresh order in accordance with law. 8. It is hardly required to be clarified that when the order is quashed, there shall not be any recovery until afresh order is passed by the respondent No.2. In the event, if the petitioner is aggrieved by afresh order, which may be passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner may resort to remedy as may be permissible in law. 9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. D.S. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy