SAMIRKUMAR RASIKLAL SHAH Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned A.G.P. Mr.Hukam Singh waives service on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department,Rajkot City Division 1, 7/5 Multi -storeyed Bldg, Rajkot dated 24 -1 -2002.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 - authority is in printed form and non speaking order which reveals total non application of mind and that unreasonably excessive market value has been fixed for the disputed property by the respondent authority. According to the learned Counsel,no reasons have been assigned by the respondent -authority for enhancement in the market value of the property than what is referred to in the sale -deed. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has also been contended that the relevant guidelines have also not been followed by the respondent -authority, and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent -authority for arriving at higher market value is absolutely arbitrary in nature. It is finally contended that the respondent -authority has fixed the valuation of the property ignoring the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984,as also the guidelines provided by the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, and therefore, the respondent authority can fix the valuation of the property using different yardsticks which would tantamount to discrimination. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in a casual manner the respondent authority has fixed the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs.23,68,096 -,and therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,12,060/ - and fine of Rs.250/ - was required to be paid to the authorities, and accordingly notice was sent to the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying Rs.2,50,000/ -at the prevalent market value. The appeal filed by the petitioner also remained unaccepted on the ground that it is time barred. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent no.2 authority is required to be quashed and set aside.