AMARDEEP ASSOCIATION NAVSARI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions instituted under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the parties to these petitions are also common, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MAINLY, the prayer made in Special Civil Application no. 24231/2007, reads as follows:

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case as emerging from the averments made in the petitions are to the effect that the property in question being 11 lakh sq. ft. of land with superstructure standing thereon came to be purchased by the petitioner-Association through a sale by public auction. It is the case of the petitioner-Association that Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills was the owner and in possession of the said lands with building but became a sick unit. Therefore, according to the petitioner, proceedings were taken up before the Board For Industrial and Finance Reconstrcution (BIFR), a scheme for reconstruction was passed by the BIFR and a sale committee consisting of four members including the Collector, Navsari, was constituted for the purpose of sale by public auction. It is further the case of the petitioner-Association that as there were no prospective buyers for buying part of the land, public advertisements were given in daily newspapers and the last such advertisement was published on 21-4-2003. The sale committee then obtained the valuation report from a Government approved valuer. According to the petitioner-Association eleven tenders were issued but only two offers were received by the sale committee. The petitioner-Association being the party who had offered the higher price of Rs. 48/- per sq. ft. was called upon by the sale committee and after some negotiations and petitioner-Association raised the offer to Rs. 51/per sq. ft. which was confirmed by the sale committee as auction price and the total consideration of Rs. 5. 61 crores was agreed to be paid by the petitioner for 11 lakh sq. ft of land with superstructure standing thereon. As the Mill was operational, it was decided that 50% amount including the advance deposit was payable within three months. Against 50% payment documents of 50% land were to be executed and accordingly initially three documents were executed for three different parcels of land, document no. 4069 valued at Rs. 2,71,33,734/- registered on 10-10-2003, document no. 4484 valued at Rs. 0,61,54,946/- registered on 21-11-2003, document no. 4485 valued at Rs. 0,05,66,266/- registered on 21-11-2003 aggregating Rs. 3,38,54,946/- The documents for the remaining lands were to be executed on full payment. The Sub Registrar, Navsari before whom the documents were presented for registration being of the opinion that the property is undervalued, he referred all the three documents to the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Navsari for determining the correct market value under Section 32a of the Act. Thereafter, notices under Rule 4 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property ) Rules, 1984 ('the Rules' for short came to be issued on 10-10-2003 and 11-11-2003 in respect of document no. 4069 by which the Deputy Collector has determined the higher market value and demanded Rs. 43,12,250/- towards additional stamp duty for document no. 4069. It appears that the petitioner has filed reply to the said notice and submitted that the market value which is fixed by the sale committee and confirmed as the auction price after considering all the aspects as to situation, area and the property in question is proper and actual market value as the same has been arrived at on the basis of the report of the Government approved valuer, especially when, one of the members of the sale committee is the Collector, Navsari himself. However, the Deputy Collector, Navsari, by his order dated 10-5-2004 held that the market value of the land sold by document no. 4069 on 14-10-2003 was Rs. 3,44,34,200/-, and thereby, determined the total stamp duty in respect of document no. 4069 at Rs. 38,56,630/- and deducting therefrom the stamp duty of Rs. 30,39,000/- paid by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to pay additional stamp duty of Rs. 8,17,880/ including Rs. 250/- towards penalty which was paid up by the petition under protest as he was desirous of having the document. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Revision Application no. 37/2004 before the CCRA under Section 44 (2) of the Act for refund of the stamp duty paid in excess whereupon the CCRA issued two notices dated 22-12-2006 and 2-3-2007 under Section 53a of the Act one calling upon the petitioner as to why stamp duty assessed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Navsari should not be raised, and the other assessing the market value of the property in question at Rs. 4,45,01,000/- and claiming additional stamp duty at Rs. 10,64,082/ -. Again, the CCRA issued a third notice on 23-7-2007 mentioning therein that in the earlier notice the value of construction has not been assessed and that the construction is assessed at Rs. 52,66,647, and therefore, the total value of the land with construction would be Rs. 4,97,67,647/- and that the additional stamp duty would be Rs. 16,53,953/- over and above what has been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner had replied to the said notices and also submitted written statements. The CCRA then after giving opportunity of hearing and considering all the relevant materials placed before it passed the order under dated 3-8-2007 under Section 53 of the Act assessing the value of the land with construction at Rs. 4,97,67,647/- and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Navsari. The CCRA also cancelled the order passed under Section 39 (1) (B) of the said Act certifying the payment of duty ,demanding total duty of Rs. 16,47,613/- and releasing the document.