PRATISHTHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 29.11.2013/28.11.2013 though passed separately, but of the same nature, by respondent No. 2 the Chief Controlling Revenue Commissioner, in appeals preferred by the petitioners under section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Stamp Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short) are under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Bhargav D. Karia appearing for M/s. Bhargav Karia and Associates for the petitioners submitted that though the appeals preferred by the petitioners under section 53(1) of the Act were within the time limit, still, the appellate authority has rejected such appeals by holding that the appeals were not filed within time limit of ninety days. Mr. Karia submitted that the orders under challenge before respondent No.2 are though dated 4.4.2013, the same were received by the petitioners on 10.4.2013. Mr. Karia submitted that even in the impugned order, it is stated that the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector were sent to the petitioners on 9.4.2013 and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to file appeals within ninety days only from the date of receipt of the said orders. Mr. Karia, thus, urged to allow the petitions and remit the matter to the appellate authority to treat the appeals of the petitioners within time limit and to decide such appeals in accordance with law.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners preferred the appeals under section 53(1) of the Act against the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department on 8.7.2013. The limitation period for filing such appeals is of 90 days. If the period of ninety days is calculated from 4.4.2013, obviously the appeals could be treated to have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of ninety days. However, as found recorded in the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority, the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector was sent to the petitioners by the office of the Deputy Collector only on 9.4.2013. Therefore, 90 days were available to the petitioners to file appeals against the order dated 4.4.2013 before the appellate authority from the date of communication of the order passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioners have stated that the petitioners received copy of order dated 4.4.2013 on 10.4.2013. Such is not disputed when it is stated in the impugned orders that the order dated 4.4.2013 were dispatched to the petitioners only on 9.4.2013.