NANDADEVI DINESHKUMAR SHARMA Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against the order dated 22nd December,2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad (Annexure ?C? to the memo of the petition) as well as against the order dated 14th February,2005 passed by respondent no.2 - Collector of Stamps, (Annexure "A" to the memo of the petition).

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 22nd December,2005 passed by Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad is patently dehors the provisions of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of property) Rules,1984 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Rules,1984?). No opportunity of hearing has ever been given to the petitioner and ex-parte order has been passed as well as the order is a non-speaking order. The so called ?Jantri?, upon which the reliance has been placed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad has never been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, the document i.e. Conveyance deed was registered on 3rd August,1994 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Odhav vide registration No.1279, whereas the so called Notice is alleged to have been given in the year 2004. Thus, it is beyond the period of 6 years and, therefore, as per section 32A(4) of The Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act,1958?), the respondent has no power, jurisdiction and authority to issue such type of Notice and, hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In fact, after approximately 10 years of the date of registration of the document, the alleged Notice appear to have been given. The petitioner has purchased the land for Rs.7,00,000/-, whereas the respondent has fixed the market price of the land in question at Rs.14,00,000/-. Thus, excessively exorbitant fixation of price and that too, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, by passing a cyclostyled non-speaking order, relying upon a Jantri (copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner) is palpably arbitrary usage of power and, hence, the impugned order dated 14th February,2005 (Annexure ?A? to the memo of the petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the order, which is at Annexure "C" also deserve to be quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 has not given any basis for fixation of market value, which is approximately double market value than what is referred in the conveyance deed.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.L.Pandya for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation,Ahmedabad is true, correct and in consonance with the facts of the present case. The market value of the land in question arrived at Rs.14,00,000/- has been fixed by respondent authority as per ?Jantri?. No Appeal has been preferred against the said order and, therefore, Notice at ?C? has been issued and, so this Court may not interfere with the orders, which are at Annexure "A" and Annexure ?C? to the memo of the petition.