SCA/376/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 376 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 ? ========================================================= DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATEL Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ========================================================= Appearance : MR UMANG K CHOKSI for Petitioner:1 MR APURVA DAVE, AGP for Respondent:1 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 15/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of Rule for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dtd.25.1.1999 issued SCA/376/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 15.2.2005 passed by respondent No.2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr Apurva Dave, learned AGP for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that, without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Office, Ahmedabad 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 order on the basis of which the respondent No.3 has valued the property at a higher rate and, therefore, deficit Stamp Duty amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and fine of Rs.250/- was required to be paid to the authorities. Therefore, it is prayed that such decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. 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 SCA/376/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT Mohanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat) (2) 2006 (3) GLR 2252 (Mayurkumar J Patel v. Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot) 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 petitioners 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. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.2 without giving any reasons in detail and the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner merely on technical point of delay has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent no.2 has also without taking into consideration that the petitioner has paid sufficient stamp duty prevailing at the relevant SCA/376/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT point of time, has valued the market value of the property at Rs.69,90,550/- and ordered the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty amounting to Rs.5,49,300/- including the fine/fee charges. 5. According to the learned AGP, the orders passed by the authorities are correct and in consonance with the facts of the case. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned orders are 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 passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 are required to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to respondent No.3 for taking fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. SCA/376/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT 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.) Amit/-