VANDANABEN DIPAKBHAI RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid petitions have been taken up for final hearing by common order, upon request of the Learned Government Pleader and the Learned Assistant Government Pleader. During the course of hearing of all these petitions, which had started right from 11:30 a.m. onwards, this Court had called Secretary, Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Smt.Vilasiniben Ramchandran, Secretary, Revenue Department remained present before this Court at 2:15 p.m..

(2.) During the course of hearing, impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization/Collector of Stamps have been read along with provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1958") especially section 32-A(4) as well as Rule 4 and Rule 8 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1984"). Several reported as well as unreported judgments have been read. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that there is patent violation of the Act,1958 as well as the Rules,1984 and of the judgments delivered by this Court while fixing market value of the properties in question by the concerned Deputy Collector/Collector of Stamps. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court, as under :

(3.) The Secretary, Revenue Department, was called so that repeatation of error on the part of Deputy Collector/Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization can be avoided and ultimately, multifariousness of the petitions can be avoided. Thoroughly non-speaking orders have been passed. The basis on which the Notice has been issued has never been supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, it is fairly submitted by the Secretary, Revenue Department as well as Learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah that these matters may be remanded to the concerned Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organisation/ Collector of Stamps/ lowest available authority under the Act, 1958, so that the petitioners may be heard afresh and speaking orders can be passed in all the aforesaid matters. It is understood clearly by the Secretary, Revenue Department that despite the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984, which have given enough guidelines in detail for fixing market value of the property and despite several judgments, non-speaking and cyclostyled orders have been passed, without giving any details to the petitioners and they deserve to be quashed. Thus, judgments also work as guidelines to the sub-ordinate staff of the Secretary, Revenue Department. It is fairly stated by the Secretary, Revenue Department that these guidelines will be further reiterated by way of Circular so that while passing afresh order, the provisions of the Act, 1958; the Rules,1984 and the judgments can be followed scrupulously and, therefore, Learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah and the Secretary, Revenue Department requested that the impugned orders may be quashed, which has been passed by the Deputy Collector/ Collector of Stamps and the matters may be remanded. Those matters, which have been covered under section 32-A (4) of the Act, 1958, the impugned order is quashed as the same is time barred as per section 32-A(4). In certain matters, it is observed that the petitioners have no option but to approach the appellate authority. They approached appellate authority but the delay has not been condoned. Requisite amount has not been paid or has been paid partly, in preferring the Appeal. Such order of non-condonation of delay are also hereby quashed. The amount deposited by the petitioners, if any, shall be refunded by the respondent authority upon proper application and upon proper verification of proof of the deposit of the amount. Special Civil Application No. 12055 of 2006 :- In view of the aforesaid judgments and provision of sub-section (4) of section 32-A of the Act, 1958, the impugned order is hereby quashed as the same is time barred. the document in question was executed on 17th September, 1997, whereas, the Notice was issued on 22nd July,2004 by the respondent authority (Annexure "D" to the memo of the petition) and, therefore, there is a clear breach of section 32-A(4) of the Act, 1958, which imposes a limitation of 6 years. Thus, except this matter, rest of the matters are hereby remanded for afresh decision by Deputy Collector/ Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organisation.