SCA/6928/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6928 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 ? ========================================================= VANITABEN DHANJIBHAI LUMBHANI - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1, Ms Bhavika Kotecha, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 16/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. SCA/6928/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot dated 22.4.2008. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. 2. 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 the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the property, he has passed the impugned order on the basis of which he has valued the property in question at an excessively exorbitant rate and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.86,760/- and fine of Rs.250/- was required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying the market value which was prevailing at the relevant time. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that as the petitioners were not served the SCA/6928/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT final order of the respondent No.1, there was delay in preferring the appeal. However, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the appeal is not within the limitation period. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent- Authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 3. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on – (i) (2006) 12 GHJ 533 (Vinaybhai P. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat), (ii) (2006) 12 GHJ 646 (Manubhai Vaghijibhai Dabhi Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.), (iii) 2006 (12) GHJ 538 (A.P.M.C., Patan Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.) and (iv) 2006 (2) GLR 1735 (New Kalindi Karnavati Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.). 4. It can be seen from the aforesaid authorities, this Court has time and again rendered decisions for quashing and setting aside the cyclostyled type order and non speaking orders by holding that it is the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify its say for higher market value for the property / land in question. In the instance case, it is clear that the impugned order does not even recite the basis or calculation for arriving at the market value, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Reference in this connection may also be had to the decision rendered in the case of Bal Nalkantha SCA/6928/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Khedoor Mandal Vs. State of Gujarat decided on 26th July, 1999 in Special Civil Application No.1731 of 1999 (Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. K.G. Balkrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Dave). 5. Having considered the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons as discussed above, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is passed in breach of the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984 as it is thoroughly non speaking order and no reasons have been assigned. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.4.2008 and 26.3.2003 passed by respondent No.1 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, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp