MOOLCHAND BRIJLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) BY filing these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers are made :-

(3.) IN the above backdrop of factual scenario, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Hasit D. Dave contends that registration of the 'Satakat' was in the year 1988 and sale consideration was fully paid to the seller which consisted of the actual market value @ Rs.27,000/= per bigha. Even on formation of T.P. Scheme by the Town Planning authorities, certain prices were fixed, the land were developed and further, assessment of the Collector was based on Jantri. But after five years, the respondent No.2 exercised powers of review in which without affording an opportunity of hearing and wiithout considering the material produced, straightway a order is passed to pay the deficit stamp duty. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the above order is not based on appreciation of materials on record and provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act and Rules and hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside.