A P M C Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against the order dated 28th February, 2005/10th March, 2005 issued by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan as well as against the order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by the Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan, which are at Annexure "A" and "E" respectively to the memo of the petition.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the order dated 28th February, 2005/10th March, 2005 passed by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan, (which is at Annexure "A" to the memo of petition) is an ex-parte order, whereby excessively exorbitant market value of the land in question has been fixed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan before passing the impugned order at Annexure "A", and, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure "A" deserves to be quashed and set aside. The valuation of the land is dehors the provisions of The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1958") and the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1984).

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that while passing the impugned order at Annexure "A", Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan has relied upon certain documents, which were never supplied to the petitioner. Respondent authority has relied upon "Jantri", which reflects the market price of the land in question. As per "Jantri", the respondent authority has fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs.1800/- per sqmetre. The petitioner has purchased the land in question, in pursuance of the permission given by the Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad from Shri Ranchhodji Mandir Trust, Patan, a Public Charitable Trust bearing registration No.A/696/Mehsana. Thus, the market price of the land in question was approved by the Charity Commissioner. The measurements of the land in question were also fixed by the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner is a public body and was in possession of the land in question since last more than 40 years. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan, while passing the impugned order at Annexure "A" to the memo of the petition. The Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan has also relied upon some letter dated 30th August, 2001, the copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. In fact, the order dated 28th February, 2005/ 10th March, 2005 at Annexure "A" passed under section 32A of the Act, 1985 is absolutely a non-speaking order. A copy of this order was also not supplied to the petitioner and, herefore, at a much belated stage, the petitioner came to know that the order has been passed and, therefore, there was some delay in preferring the Appeal. This fact has also not been appreciated by the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan and, therefore, the order dated 5th December,2005 at Annexure "E" deserves to be quashed and set aside.