HARISHBHAI BODARAMBHAI MOTHAREJA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. A.J. Desai, learned AGP waives the service of rule on behalf of respondents.

(2.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.4.2008 as well as order dated 05.06.2003 passed by respondent No.1.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is a cyclostyled type 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 Advocate, 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 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 of 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 Advocate that in a casual manner the respondent -Authority has fixed the market value of the property in question, and therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,42,700/ - and along with fine of Rs. 250/ - was required to be paid to the authorities. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent - Authorities are required to be quashed and set aside.