BARODA GLASS WORKS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara, dated May, 2007. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr U H Oza, learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he has passed the impugned order on the basis of which the he has valued the property in question at an excessively exorbitant market value and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs. 8,26,564/- and a fine of Rs. 250/- was required to be paid to the authorities. 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 the market value, though he has accepted the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) THIS court has gone through the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Vadodara dated May, 2007. (Date is not given ). It transpires from the order passed by the respondent No. 2, Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization that he has agreed with the contention raised in the reply filed by the petitioner at page 22 (Annexure 'e') and it is held by the Dy. Collector that the said shed i. e. the property in question is in proper condition and is still having roof. It is also held by the Dy. Collector that he has accepted all the averments made by in the reply filed by the petitioner. In spite of that, on what basis the market value of the property was determined by him is not mentioned in the order. No reasons are assigned for determining the market price of the property in question.