BAJAJ COL CHEM Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Alpesh G. Dodia for petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for respondent No.1.

(2.) Brief facts of present petition are that on 28.9.2004, GSFC published one public advertisement for auction of property being land, building and machinery of M/s.Atlanta Pigments Pvt. Ltd. On 22.8.2005, petitioner was the highest bidder in auction therefore sale deed was executed between M/s.Atlanta Pigments and petitioner. The sale deed was registered as registration No. 3578 before concerned authority. On 4.1.2006, respondent No.2 issued notice calling upon petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty to the extent of Rs.2,38,120/ -. Against that order, petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent No.1 - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority challenging notice dated 4.1.2006 of respondent No.2 and appeal filed by petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay on 21.11.2006. Thereafter, petitioner's Advocate has made representation to respondent No. 2 for returning of original sale deed by legal notice dated 4.11.2008. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred SCA (St.) No.1885 of 2009 before this Court but, this Court has disposed of the same for non removal of office objections with a liberty to file fresh petition(er) on 18.6.2009. Thereafter, again petitioner preferred petition before this Court being SCA No.11509 of 2009 and this Court has remanded back matter to respondents by order dated 22.12.2009. Then, again petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.1 - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority with requisite stamp duty and respondent No.1 was pleased to reject appeal filed by petitioner on 21.7.2010 on the ground that stamp duty should be calculated according to jantri and not according to price fixed by authority in auction. Therefore, in present petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by respondent No.1 dated 21.7.2010.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Dodiya appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that when property is purchased by petitioner in public auction, then whatever the price fixed in public auction should not have to be disturbed by Dy. Collector and it should be treated as market value for purpose of stamp duty. He relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Metro Hospital & Research Institute, Vadodara v. State of Gujarat & Others, reported in 2009 (2) GLR 1537. He relied upon Para.20 and 21 of aforesaid decision which is quoted as under : -