MANUBHAI VAGHJIBHAI DABHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against the order dated 1st January, 2004 issued by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad as well as against the attachment notice dated 17th February,2006 passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar and Ex-Officio Recovery Officer (Stamp Duty Registration), Ahmedabad, which are at Annexure "C" and "B" respectively to the memo of the petition.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the order dated 1st January,2004 passed by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad, (which is at Annexure "C" 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), Ahmedabad before passing the impugned order at Annexure "C", and, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure "C" 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 "C", the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad 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. 30,96,200. In fact, the order dated 1" January, 2004 at Annexure "C" to the memo of the petition is absolutely a non-speaking order. A copy of this order was not supplied to the petitioner. This fact has also not been appreciated by the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Ahmedabad and, therefore, the notice dated 17th February, 2006 at Annexure "B" deserves to be quashed and set aside.