(1.) This petition has been preferred against the order dated 24th January,2006 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?D? to the memo of the petition) as well as against the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?E? to the memo of the petition).
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 16th June,2003 passed by respondent no.1 was never served upon petitioner and, therefore, could not preferred an appeal within a period of 90 days under section 32-B of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act,1958).
(3.) It is also vehementally submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Annexure ?E? to the memo of the petition) is absolutely a non-speaking order. No reasons have been assigned and straightaway conclusion has been arrived at by respondent No.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon several judgments delivered by this Court whereby, it has been pointed out that if a non-speaking order passed by respondent no.1, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Looking to the impugned order at Annexure ?E?, it appears that no reasons have been assigned for non-acceptance of the defences raised by the petitioner. The price of the land in question was Rs.2,00,000/-, for which, conveyance deed was executed. The market price of the land in question arrived at by respondent no.1 was at Rs.20,37,646/-. How this figure has been arrived at, is not known to the petitioner. There is a total non-application of mind by respondent no.1 for arriving at, the market value of the land in question and, therefore, the order at Annexure ?E? deserves to be quashed and set aside. The order at Annexure ?E? was never served upon the petitioner and, hence, there is some delay in preferring the appeal and, so, both the orders at Annexure ?D? and ?E? deserve to be quashed and set aside.