wp3355-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3355 OF 2011 Essem Capital Markets Ltd & Anr .. Petitioners versus The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain with Swapnil Bangur, A.V.Jain, Navedita Kundey, Laxmi Jessan i/by A.V.Jain & Associates for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th July 2011. P.C.: 1] At this stage itself, this petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal by consent of parties. 2] The petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No.1 on 23rd August 2010 which reads thus:- wp3355-11.doc 2 “ORDER 1. This is the fit case for review under section 53A of the said Act. 2. Market value of the property involved in subject document is Rs.17,18,71,000/- (Rs.Seventeen Crore Eighteen Lakh Seventy One Thousand Only). 3. Non-applicant's subject document is deficit in stamp duty of Rs.78,43,550/- (Rs.Seventy Eight Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only). 4. Non-applicant to pay Rs.78,43,550/- (Rs.Seventy Eight Lakh Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only) within 30 days. 5. Collector of Stamp, Mumbai to certify document on payment as above. 6. Intimate concerned. Place-Pune. Date-23/8/2010 SD/-RAMARAO SHINGARE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE TRUE COPY Sd/- FOR CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE.” 3] It is the contention of the petitioner that the report of the Joint Director, Town Planning (Valuation) M.S. has been discarded by the first respondent Authority without any wp3355-11.doc 3 convincing reason and particularly when the petitioner also brought in a valuation report. The petitioner had pointed out as to how the report of the Joint Director, Town Planning (Valuation) deserved acceptance. However, none of these contentions have been considered. The petitioner has raised a specific ground in the petition, and in paras 19 and 20 invited the attention of this Court to the fact that he had engaged services of Government approved valuer and had pointed out that he made a report which was forwarded to the first respondent. There were certain discussions thereafter and additionally submissions were also filed. None of these averments have been dealt with by the respondents till date. Further, there is no denial of the fact that these written statements are on record. In such circumstances, minimum that was expected from respondents was to consider the matter in its entirety and if at all it had to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner’s contention had no basis in law, they ought to have indicated this with reasons and sufficient clarify to support that conclusion. In the light of the fact that this exercise has not wp3355-11.doc 4 been undertaken at all, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter shall now be re-heard by the Chief Controlling Authority, Maharashtra State afresh and he shall pass a reasoned order without being influenced by any of the conclusions rendered earlier as expeditiously as possible and within eight weeks from today. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the said authority and place such material together with written submissions, if any, on record. Petitioner’s Advocate will accept intimation of the date of hearing. The writ petition is disposed off with the above directions. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)