SCA/3907/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3907 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 ? ========================================================= RUXAMANIBEN JAGDISHCHANDRA SHAH - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR UMANG K CHOKSI for Petitioner(s) : 1, Mr Apurva Dave, Asstt.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 10/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. 1. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2000 passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Office, SCA/3907/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Himatnagar as well as the order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar, Notice dated 2.2.2008 issued by the Dy.Mamlatdar, Stamp (Special Recovery) Officer, Himatnagar - Annexures 'B', 'E' and 'F' respectively. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without giving any details regarding determination of market value and without giving any notice, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Sabarkantha District, Himatnagar, on the ground of development of the area. The said order is at Annexure 'B'. It is submitted by him that respondent no. 2 has not considered the fact of the sale deed and also the nearby sale instances were not taken into consideration while fixing the market price. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order on the basis of which he has valued the property in question at an excessively exorbitant rate and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs. 1,71,820/- was required to be paid to the authorities. 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 market value which was prevailing at the relevant time. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that the property in question is situated at survey no.871 at village and Tal.Bayad, District Sabarkantha which is not a developed area. It is his submission that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the appellate authority has SCA/3907/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT also passed a non-speaking order on 13.9.2007. Thereafter, notice has been issued under section 2.2.2008 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by the respondent No.4, Dy. Mamlatdar, Special (Recovery Officer), Stamp Duty Valuation Office, Himatnagar. Therefore, it is prayed that the decisions of the respondent authorities are required to be quashed and set aside. 3. It is held by the Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Office, Himatnagar that taking into consideration Statement-I showing the price of stamp duty valuation for approval pertaining to City Survey Area, Bayad, and taking into consideration the other relevant factors like development of the surrounding area, he determined the price of the property in question. The decision of the Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Office, has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 4. Learned AGP placed on record the true copy of the Statement-I showing the price of stamp duty valuation for approval. As per this index table (jantri), the petitioner has paid the stamp duty more than prescribed in the jantri which prima facie shows that without application of mind, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent-authorities. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent-authorities without giving any cogent and convincing reasons. This clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the SCA/3907/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT respondent- Authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.10.2000, 13.9.2007 and the notice dated 2.2.2008 passed by the respondent- authorities 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 petitioner. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to dispose of the matter accordingly as early as possible, preferably 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. Direct service is permitted. No order as to costs. [M.D. SHAH, J.] msp