SCA/28811/2007 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28811 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 ? ========================================================= KISHOR RASIKLAL KAMANI - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RC KAKKAD for Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, MR VH OZA GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 16/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 RULE. Mr. Oza, learned AGP waives the SCA/28811/2007 2/7 JUDGMENT service of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. 2.0 The petitioners, herein, are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Rasiklal Vrajlal Kamani. By way of this petition, they have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector-respondent No.1, herein, dated 20.12.2006. 3.0 The brief facts of the case are that a registered partnership Firm namely M/s. Anil Creators purchased a property known as 'Kishorevila' situated at City Survey No.16, Kasturba Road, Nr. Chaudhary High School, Rajkot admeasuring about 813.98 sq.mts vide registered Sale Deed No. 5380 dated 23.04.1991. The aforesaid Firm thereafter obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation, demolished the 'Kishorevila' bungalow and constructed a new commercial as well as residential building namely 'Alaukik'. SCA/28811/2007 3/7 JUDGMENT 3.1 In pursuance of that the partners of the aforesaid partnership Firm decided to dissolve the Firm by distributing the property of the Firm among the partners. Thereupon, a Dissolution Deed No.6954 came to be executed on 17.07.1993. As a result of the aforesaid dissolution, the deceased Rasiklal Vrajlal Kamani got two flats i.e. Flat No.204 and Flat No.304 situated on the 2nd and 3rd floor of the 'Alaukik' building, respectively. 3.2 Thereupon, respondent No.1 without giving an opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order. 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 petitioners before passing the impugned order. 4.1 Learned Advocate has further submitted SCA/28811/2007 4/7 JUDGMENT that neither any material supplied nor any reasons are assigned for the valuation done by the respondent No.1 and that the order has 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 order passed by respondent No.1 is in printed form and that the same is issued by filling blanks. Apart from that, respondent No.1 has not supplied any material to the petitioners 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. SCA/28811/2007 5/7 JUDGMENT 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 petitioners was determined and on the basis of which respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that the stamp duty paid by the petitioners is less. Apart from that, respondent No.1, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, passed the impugned order. 5.2 The aforesaid fact shows that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order 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 order. 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 SCA/28811/2007 6/7 JUDGMENT 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 order passed by the Deputy Collector-respondent No.1 dated 20.12.2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the 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.) SCA/28811/2007 7/7 JUDGMENT Umesh/