NAGJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI BHANDARI Vs. CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned A.G.P. Ms.Nisha Parikh waives service.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer to set aside the order of Deputy Superintendent of Stamps by which the petitioner's application dated 25.01.2007 for staying the execution proceedings was ordered to be filed on the ground of delay. The date of that order is obscure.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.N. Bavishi pointed out from record that the petitioner had along with nine other persons purchased a piece of land comprising 29 plots for which the transfer deed was executed on 05.02.1998. That deed was referred to the Collector for determining the true market value under the provisions of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") and an order dated 01.01.2005 had come to be made by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organisation whereby, market value of the land in question was determined and after deducting the stamp duty already paid, deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,56,250/- along with penalty of Rs.250/- was demanded from the petitioner. It was submitted that, that order dated 01.01.2005 was not served upon the petitioner and he had straightway received notice dated 19.05.2007 for recovery of the total amount due, including interest and surcharge by attachment of movable or immovable properties of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court with the grievance that the duty was made payable by and sought to be recovered only from the petitioner without complying with the provisions of law relevant for the purpose of determining the market value. It was submitted that the petitioner has proposed to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under the provisions of Section 32-B of the Act but, by virtue of the impugned order, he was denied that opportunity only on the ground that the period of limitation was over and there was no provision for condonation of delay.