VEKARIA KANTILAL LAXMANBHAI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) BY way of this petition, the present petitioners has challenged the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Office (City)Department 1, 7/5, Bahumali Bhava, Rajkot dated 22-1-2003. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Apurva A. Dave AGP for the respondents.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 authority 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 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 petitioners 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 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 Counsel that in a casual manner the respondent authority has fixed the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs. 10,28,785/-,and therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs. 62,380/- and fine of Rs. 250/- was required to be paid to the authorities, and accordingly notice was sent to the petitioners. 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. 4,07,700/- at a market value and the respondent authority has also not considered the market value was per Jantri decided by the State. The authority had not acceded to the request of the petitioners to consider his case of hearing of appeal on the ground of delay for which the petitioner had approached the authority with an application dated 22-1-2003. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside.