SCA/8192/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8192 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 ? ========================================================= NAVNEETBHAI M RAICHURA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PK CHANDARANA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS BHAVIKA KOTECHA, AGP for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 02/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Bhavika Kotecha, , learned AGP for respondents. SCA/8192/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 2. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Umang Oza waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. 3. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the respondent No.3 – the Deputy Collector (Stamps), Stamp Valuation Department, Rajkot as well as the final order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the said respondent directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty with fine for the plot the petitioner had purchased way back in the year 2000. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, by filling up some gaps, the orders have been passed by the respondent No.3 - the Deputy Collector, (Stamps) Stamp Valuation Department, Rajkot in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he has passed the impugned orders without any basis fixing the market value of the plots of the petitioner which is at a higher SCA/8192/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT rate and, therefore, the petitioner has been asked to pay the deficit Stamp Duty and fine as mentioned in the Notice/order dated 19.12.2001 as well as in the order dated 20.5.2008. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the plots in question by paying the requisite amount as per the prevailing market value which has not been considered by the respondent authority as per Jantri decided by the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware about such a Notice/order and when he came to know about the same, he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which came to be rejected on the ground of delay by passing the final order. Therefore, it is prayed that the orders of the respondent authorities is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. In support of his submission, the Learned advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions of this court: (1) 2003 (1) GLR 454 vol.44 (Pradhyaumanbhai Mohanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2) 2006 (3) GLR 2252 (Mayurkumar J Patel v. Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot) SCA/8192/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT In the above decisions, it is held by this court that without giving any reasons and without applying mind towards any of the defences raised by the petitioner therein, in printed format the impugned order has been passed wherein some gaps have been filled in and one and two sentences have been added. It is also held by this court that it is the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify its say for higher market value for the land in question, and thus, the order in question was quashed and set aside by the court in the aforesaid decision. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order is in printed form and only some gaps have been filled up by the authorities without giving any reasons. This clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent- authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.12.2001 as well as the order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to respondent No.3 – the Deputy Collector, (Stamps) Stamp Valuation Department, Block SCA/8192/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT No.1, 7/5, Bahumali Bhavan, Rajkot for taking fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the matter accordingly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] Sreeram.