KIRITKUMARA KANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Neeraj Soni learned A.G.P., waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Deputy Collector respondent no. 3 herein dated 15th/17th July, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit court fees of Rs.4,52,605=00 on the ground that the valuation of the property stated by the petitioner was on lower side. The grievance of the petitioner is that the property was purchased in auction sale held by the Gujarat State Finance Corporation and, therefore, such valuation could not have been questioned by the respondents.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Choksi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Soni learned A.G.P., for the respondents. Mr. Choksi has submitted that the property is purchased by the petitioner in auction sale held by the Gujarat State Finance Corporation and, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the valuation. This submission has some force. In proviso of Section 32A(1) of the Bombay Stamps Act, it is clearly stated that for the purpose of sub -section of the said Section, consideration set forth in an instrument executed by the State Government, the Central Government, a local authority, Gujarat Housing Board, Gujarat Slum Clearance Board or Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, shall be deemed to be the true market value of the property, which is the subject matter of such instrument. The Gujarat State Finance Corporation is also similar entity created under the Statute and, therefore, there is no question of doubting the consideration set forth in an instrument executed with it. Mr. Chokshi has referred to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6th September, 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 16089/2006. By the said order, in similar circumstance, the learned Single Judge by making observations in paragraph 4 has disposed of the matter directing the concerned authority to hear the petitioner. This order was passed upon the willingness shown by the petitioner to go to the said authority. Paragraph 4 is reproduced verbatim herein below.