RAJENDRA CHATURBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Block No.271 (Old Survey No.133) of Mouje Ambali, admeasuring 2 Acres and 32 Gunthas for a consideration of Rs.1,93,375/, by way of a Registered Sale Deed on 13.07.1994. Accordingly, Revenue Entry No.2225 was mutated recording the said transaction. The father of the petitioner passed away on 20.02.1997, and a Revenue Entry No.2484, to this effect, was mutated in the revenue record on 24.06.1997, recording the names of the heirs. This entry was certified on 29.07.1997. Thereafter on 17.08.1997, Revenue Entry No.2496 was mutated to the effect that the mother and sister of the petitioner have relinquished their rights qua the land in question in favour of the petitioner. On 30.09.2004, respondent No.2 passed an exparte order determining the market value of the property in question and directing the deceased father of the petitioner to pay Rs.4,31,110/ towards deficit stamp duty plus Rs.250/ towards penalty. Even thereafter, Notices dated 28.07.2011, 12.11.2011 and 23.01.2013, were issued by respondent No.2 in the name of the late father of the petitioner, at his old address, calling upon him to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order was never served on him nor were any Notices served on him, as they were issued in the name of his late father at the old address. The petitioner came to know of the said order only when it was given to him by respondent No.2 on 16.08.2014, under the RTI proceedings. The petitioner remained present before respondent No.2 on 19.02.2013, pursuant to the Notice dated 23.01.2013, which too, was issued in the name of his late father and was posted at the old address of his late father, which was handed over to the petitioner by one Shri Bansibhai. The petitioner informed respondent No.2 that his father had passed away and that the land was now in the name of the petitioner and no Notice had been served upon him. The petitioner also gave his address to respondent No.2, requesting that the necessary documents be provided to him.