SCA/5161/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5161 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 ? ========================================================= VINESH RAMJIBHAI VIRANI & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. MR UMANG OZA, AGP for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 29/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Umang Oza waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of the present petition, the present petitioners have SCA/5161/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT challenged the impugned orders dated 25.2.2008 and 30.4.2001 passed by respondent No.1-Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot. 3. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Umang Oza, learned AGP for the respondents. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased a Flat No.201 on second floor Block-B of “Sanidhya Apartment” of Revenue Survey No.481 and the sale was duly registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajkot, at Sr.No.3502 with affixing necessary Stamp duty. Without any intimation, the respondent No.1 issued notice on 30.4.2001 which, according to the petitioners, never received by them. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 authority is a cyclostyled type and non speaking order which reveals total non application of mind and that unreasonably excessive market value has been fixed for the disputed property by the authority. According to the learned advocate, no reasons have been assigned by the authority concerned for enhancement of the market value of the property in question than what is referred to in the sale deed. It has also been contended by learned advocate that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. It has also been contended that the relevant guidelines have also not SCA/5161/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT been followed by the respondent authority, and therefore, the decision taken by the authority for arriving at a higher market value is absolutely arbitrary in nature. It is finally contended that the respondent authority has fixed the valuation of the property ignoring the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984, as also the guidelines provided by the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, and therefore, the respondent authority can fix the valuation of the property using different yardsticks which would tantamount to discrimination. It is submitted by learned advocate that in a casual manner the authority has fixed the market value of the property in question at a higher price and therefore deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,01,040/- and fine of Rs.250/-. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioners considered the fact that the petitioners had purchased the property in question by paying the amount as per the Jantri decided by the State. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also rejected by the authority by communication dated 25.2.2008 on the ground of limitation/delay. Therefore, it is prayed that the decisions of the respondent authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 5. In support of his submission, learned advocate has placed reliance on : (i) (2006) 12 GHJ 533 (Vinaybhai P.Patel v. State of Gujarat), (ii) (2006) 12 GHJ 646 (Manubhai Vaghijibhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat and anr.), (iii) 2006 (12) GHJ 538 SCA/5161/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT (A.P.M.C., Paten v. State of Gujarat and anr., and (iv) 2006(2) GLR 1735 (New Kalindi Karnavati Co.op.Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and ors.). 7. As can be seen from the aforesaid authorities, this Court has time and again, rendered decisions for quashing and setting aside the cyclostyled type orders 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 land in question. In the instant 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 Khedoor Mandal v. State of Gujarat, decided on 26th July 1999 in Special Civil Application No.1731 of 1999 (Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr.K.G.Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D.Dave.) The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent authority is taken on record. 8. Having considered the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons as discussed above, in my considered opinion, the impugned orders are passed in breach of the provisions of the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984 as they are thoroughly non speaking orders and no reasons have been assigned. In that view of the SCA/5161/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.4.2001 and 25.2.2008 passed by the respondent No.1- Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the said authority for taking a fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per the Act, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. (M.D.Shah, J.) Sreeram.