DEVSHIBHAI MOHANLAL RATHOD Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, City Division I, Rajkot dated 2. 8. 2007. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr L. R. Pujari, learned AGP for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, City Division I, Rajkot in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he has passed the impugned order on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 has valued the property in question at Rs. 1,61,084/- and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs. 18,930/- and fine of Rs. 250/- was required to be paid to the authorities. A Notice was accordingly sent to the petitioner on 4. 3. 2003. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the plots in question by paying Rs. 27,522/-- at a market value and the respondent authority has also not considered the market value as per Jantri decided by the State. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authorities is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IN support of his submission, the Learned advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions of this court: (1) 2003 (1) GLR 454 vol. 44 (Pradhyaumanbhai Mohanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2) 2006 (3) GLR 2252 (Mayurkumar J Patel v. Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot)In the above decisions, it is held by this court that without giving any reasons and without applying mind towards any of the defences raised by the petitioner therein, in printed format the impugned order has been passed wherein some gaps have been filled in and one and two sentences have been added. It is also held by this court that it is the duty vested in the respondent authorities to justify its say for higher market value for the land in question, and thus, the order in question was quashed and set aside by the court in the aforesaid decision.