INDIRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered into agreement for purchasing a site measuring 60 x 45 feet, bearing No. 32 in Sy. No. 3 of Garahalli, Bangalore North Taluk from the 5th respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 24-8-1978. Since the 5th respondent failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed suit in O. S. No. 1553/82. After contest, the suit was decreed on 24-8-1984. R. F. A. 17/86 filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 23-3-1993. Thereafter, in Execution No. 406/85 the petitioner got the sale deed executed through the Court. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has passed a provisional order fixing the value of the site at Rs. 5,40,000/- and directing the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 10,500/ -. The appeal preferred against the same was rejected. This writ petition is filed praying to quash those orders on the ground that the provisional order was not served on the petitioner and no notice was served before passing the provisional order.

(2.) ). I have perused the impugned orders. The provisional order at Annexure-F and the final order at Annexure-G are passed taking into consideration the relevant aspects and assigning valid and cogent reasons. The same do not call for interference. The contentions of Mr. Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has not considered the appeal taking into consideration Rule 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments Rules; that it is not a speaking order and hence the same is liable to be quashed, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that both the authorities have taken into consideration the location of the property, the facilities and infrastructure available in the vicinity and other relevant aspects. After passing the provisional order, opportunity was given to the petitioner to file her objections. However, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity. Hence, final order at Annexure-G came to be passed confirming the provisional order. The petitioner cannot have any grievance against such orders.

(3.) EVEN otherwise also, the order passed by the 3rd respondent is a valid order. As along as the order passed by the original authority stands to the test of legality and validity, the orders of either the appellate or revisional authority will not attract interference.