SCA/25383/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25383 of 2007 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 ? ========================================================= BHAGWANDAS VRAJLAL BATHIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR APURVA DAVE GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 16/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 RULE. Mr. Dave, learned AGP waives the service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. SCA/25383/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT 2.0 By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Collector-respondent No.1, herein, dated 26.05.2003 and 29.06.2007. 3.0 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a property bearing Revenue Survey No. 493 to 496 situated on the corner of Gondal Road and Vijay Plot Sheri. No.11 which includes construction as well as shops admeasuring about 139-5-36 sq.mts. vide registered Sale Deed No.2931 dated 20.07.2002. 3.1 In pursuance of that the petitioner came to know about the final order dated 26.05.2003 passed by respondent No.1. 3.2 The petitioner, thereupon, deposited 25 per cent amount of the total deficit stamp duty and preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before respondent No.2 through respondent No.1. Thereupon, vide order dated 29.06.2007 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner came to know that his SCA/25383/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT appeal was rejected on the ground of delay. Hence, the present petition. 4.0 Mr. Kakkad, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. 4.1 Learned Advocate has further submitted that since the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority at Gandhinagar, the point of limitation, if any, would have to be decided by the Appellate Authority and not by respondent No.1. 4.2 Learned Advocate has further submitted that neither any material supplied nor any reasons are assigned for the valuation done by the respondent No.1 and that the orders have been passed in a cyclostyled form by filling up blanks. 5.0 Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. From the record it transpires that the orders passed by respondent No.1 are in printed forms and that the SCA/25383/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT same are issued by filling blanks. Apart from that, respondent No.1 has not supplied any material to the petitioner on the basis of which the valuation of the property has been determined. In that view of the matter here it would be relevant to refer to decision of this Court in the case of “B.M. Bharwad Vs. State” reported in 2005(2) GLR 1792 wherein it has been observed that it is the statutory duty of the Officer to convey in the notice the material on the basis of which the valuation of the property has been determined. 5.1 In the case on hand, the respondent No.1 has not supplied any material to the petitioner on the basis of which the valuation of the property of the petitioner was determined and on the basis of which respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner is less. Apart from that, though, the petitioner had filed detailed reply to the notice issued by respondent No.1, the same was not taken into consideration by respondent No.1 and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned orders. SCA/25383/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT 5.2 The aforesaid fact shows that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned orders mechanically, without applying his mind. Admittedly, there have been neither any material supplied nor any reasons assigned by respondent No.1 for passing the impugned orders. 5.3 The respondent No.1 is quasi-judicial Authority, and hence, being a quasi-judicial authority, it is required to supply the relevant material on the basis of which the valuation of the property of the petitioner was determined. Apart from that, it is also required to deal with the contentions raised by the parties concerned and to consider various provisions of the Act and the law laid down by this Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 for its consideration afresh on merits. 6.0 In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector- respondent No.1 dated 26.05.2003 and 29.06.2007 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the SCA/25383/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT respondent No.1 for its consideration afresh on merits. The respondent No.1, after hearing the petitioner and after considering all the contentions raised before it, shall pass a reasoned order without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. (M.D. Shah,J.) Umesh/