RAINBOW ORGANIZERS Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned A.G.P. Ms.Nisha Parikh waives service of Rule for the respondents.

(2.) Common grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is that final notices for recovery of deficit stamp duty are issued to them under the provisions of Section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code pursuant to the transfer of land which took place in or around the year 1999. It is their case, generally, that they have not received the notices required to be served upon them before assessing market value of the lands in question and that their appeals are not decided on merits after giving to the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.

(3.) Learned A.G.P. Ms.Nisha Parikh, appearing for the respondents, pointed out that repeated attempts have been made by the authorities to afford to the petitioners opportunity of being heard but, due to one or the other reasons, either the notices of proceedings under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short Sthe Act ) are not served upon the petitioners or acknowledgment for their receipt by the petitioners are not found on record. Therefore, in short, there are one or the other procedural lapses rendering the impugned orders and the proceedings vulnerable on technical grounds, according to the submission. It was, therefore, fairly stated on behalf of the respondents that the respondents would have no objection to the final orders and notices being set aside with the direction to initiate proceedings for determination of market value and assessment of stamp duty afresh under the provisions of Section 32-A of the Act and to conclude the same expeditiously within a given time limit.