SCA/4064/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4064 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 ? ========================================================= BANARASIBEN GOVINDJI DAYBHA - Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR UMANG K CHOKSI for Petitioner. Mr.Apurva A. Dave, AGP for the respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 04/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Apurva Dave waives service on behalf of the respondents. 1. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 9-12- SCA/4064/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT 2005 passed by the respondent no.3-Deputy Collector, Part I, Stamp Duty Office, Polytechnic, Ahmedabad. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Apurva A.Dave AGP for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 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 respondent authority. According to the learned Counsel,no reasons have been assigned by the respondent-authority for enhancement in the market value of the property than what is referred to in the sale-deed and that no notice was served upon the petitioner. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has also been contended that the relevant guidelines have also not been followed by the respondent-authority, and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent -authority for arriving at 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 of 1958, and SCA/4064/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT therefore, the respondent authority can fix the valuation of the property using different yardsticks which would tantamount to discrimination. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in a casual manner the respondent authority has fixed the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs.12,60,900/-,and therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,05,920/- and fine of Rs.250/- was required to be paid to the authorities, and accordingly notice was sent to the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying Rs.3,10,000/- at a market value and the respondent authority has also not considered this fact. On these grounds, it is prayed that the 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 (i) Letters Patent Appeal no.109 of 2005 in Special Civil Application no.16787 of 2004 with Civil Application no.666 of 2005 decided on 22-2-2005 (Coram: B.J.Shethna & M.C.Patel,JJ.) and (ii) Special Civil Application no.4434 of 2003 decoded on 11-8-2003 (Coram: A.R.Dave,J.). 5. This Court has time and again rendered decisions for quashing and setting aside the cyclostyled type orders and non speaking orders by holding SCA/4064/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 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 be had to the decision rendered in the case of(i) Bal Nalkantha Khedoor Mandal vs. State of Gujarat decided on 26th July, 1999 in Special Civil Application no.1731 of 1999 (Coram: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. K.G.Balkrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Dave and (ii)Kumarpal Kundanlalmal Bafna v. State of Gujarat decided on 11-8-2003 in Special Civil Application no.4434 of 2003. 6. It is true that the petitioner has not exhausted equally efficacious alternative remedy before approaching this Court but looking to the patent illegality in the impugned order, in the opinon of this Court, it would not be proper to drag the petitioner into further litigation, especially when the impugned order is bad in law as such a step would result in multiciplity of proceedings. 7. Having considered the aforesaid authorities and for the reasons as discussed above, in my considered opinion, the impugned order is passed in breach of the provisions of the Act,1958 and the Rules, 1984 as they are thoroughly non SCA/4064/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT speaking orders and no reasons have been assigned. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9- 12-2005 passed by the respondent no.3-authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3-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 petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. (M.D.Shah,J.) lee.