RAJESHBHAI NARANBHAI BHAYANI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned A.G.P. Ms.Nisha Parikh waives service for the respondents. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel, the petition was heard for final disposal.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioners have purchased the property consisting of land in the year 1999 and, while the instrument of transfer was sought to be registered, it was referred for proper assessment of market value and stamp duty laviable thereon. Notices were issued, but not served in accordance with the relevant Rules and the first impugned order dated 10.03.2005 came to be passed, wherein, under the provisions of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act"), market value of the property in question came to be assessed at Rs.70,47,300/- on which deficit stamp duty and penalty totaling to Rs.6,83,480/- was assessed and demanded by the notice dated 07.08.2007 which was issued under Section 200 of the Land Revenue Code. Upon the aforesaid order coming to the notice of the petitioner, they are stated to have approached for a reference and necessary applications for reducing the requisite deposit and to condone the delay in making the application for reference were also made. However, the reference as envisaged in the provisions of Section 32-B was not made and the applications of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.08.2007 only on the ground of delay. Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court with an oral statement of the learned counsel that the petitioners were still prepared to comply with the necessary conditions and make appropriate representation before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for the purpose of proper assessment of market value and stamp duty.

(3.) Learned A.G.P. Ms.Nisha Parikh, appearing for the respondents, fairly conceded that, in view of the irregular and delayed proceedings held by the Collector concerned and in view of several recent judgments of this Court, the applications of the petitioner for reference and for reduction of the amount of requisite deposit were required to be considered and decided on merits and the authority shall have no objection to consider and decide the same in accordance with law after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.