MAGANLAL V LODHIYA Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Ashwin Patel with learned Advocate Mr.Sandeep N. Bhatt on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Amit Patel on behalf of respondent - State Authority. Brief facts of present petition are as under:..

(2.) According to petitioner, he had purchased property on 16.02.1999 by registered sale deed No.692 by paying requisite stamp duty. Thereafter, respondent No.2 - Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, (City Block -1) had issued notice on 03.01.2002 for determination of market value of property and petitioner represented himself on date of hearing. Thereafter, on 31.01.2002, respondent No.2 - Deputy Collector passed final order under Section 32(A) of Bombay Stamp Act. Thereafter, on 18.06.2002, petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent No.1 - Authority against which on 10.05.2006, respondent No.2 has issued order while dismissing appeal.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Ashwin Patel submitted that after order passed by Deputy Collector on 31.01.2002, a request was made by petitioner on 17.05.2002 to Deputy Collector to permit him to pay 12.5% stamp duty against total amount of deficit stamp duty. This amount requires to be deposited when appeal preferred before Appellate Authority. Learned Advocate Mr.Ashwin Patel submitted that after receiving aforesaid letter dated 06.06.2002, appeal was preferred immediately within 15 days before Appellate Authority, but, answer was given (Page -47, Annexure -"E") that appeal is beyond a period of limitation, which is not correct looking to facts on record. Therefore, he submitted that respondent No.1 not entertained appeal because of limitation and therefore, letter dated 10.05.2006 required to be quashed and set aside.