VASANTKUMAR DANMAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the present petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Nanpura, Surat dated 6.6.2003 and the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Surat Division Surat 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 much higher rate and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.4,81,600/ - with fine of Rs.250/ - and further fine of Rs.1000/ - under section 39(1) of the Stamp Act was required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has, without application of mind, considered the power of attorney as if the power of attorney is a sale deed. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal but the authority has not considered the said application and rejected the appeal.

(3.) THE respondent Dy.Collector has passed final order on 6.6.2003. Though the petitioners appeared before the respondent No.2 and pointed out the correct facts with regard to the dispute, without considering the reality, respondent no.2 has considered the Power of Attorney as Sale Deed and passed the order. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay on 30.8.2003. Instead of hearing the appeal, respondent no.1 has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay without giving any opportunity of hearing after a lapse of 4 years of filing the appeal.