VIRESHWAR ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Vireshwar Association has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the respondent No.3 Deputy Collector (Annexure-D) in respect of the deed No.3331 registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27.6.1995. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 could not have exercised the powers under Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act) beyond the period of six years of the registration as contemplated under Section 32A(4) of the said Act. It is also alleged that earlier notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.4.2004, however, all such proceedings prior to 15.5.2007 were withdrawn by the respondent authority and thereafter the impugned order was passed after gross delay.

(2.) The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.3 by filing the affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that the case of the petitioner falls under Section 32A(1) and not under Section 32A(4) of the said Act, and therefore, the period of six years prescribed in Section 32A(4) of the said Act would not be applicable. It is also contended that earlier a notice was issued in the year 2004, however, the same was reissued in view of the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No.10177 of 2008 and the circular issued by the Government in Revenue Department. The petitioner, without exhausting the alternative remedy, has preferred the petition, which is not maintainable. It is also contended that the notices for recovery of deficit stamp duty under the Bombay Land Revenue Code have already been issued against the petitioner.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 on 19.4.2012 in the year 2016 i.e. after a period of four years of passing of the impugned order, and that too, without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under Section 53 of the said Act. Hence, in ordinary circumstances, such petition would not have been entertained by the Court, however, on careful perusal of the record, more particularly the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the respondent No.3, it appears that the proceedings were initiated by the said respondent under Section 32A(4) of the said Act after a period of six years of the registration of the document in question. Though earlier the notices were issued in the year 2004 under Section 32A of the said Act, as transpiring from the said impugned order itself, the said notices were not proceeded further in view of the order dated 8.8.2009 passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No.10177 of 2008. Thereafter, it appears that the proceedings were again initiated under Section 32A(4) by issuing notice on 12.12.2011. The said notice having been issued under Section 32A(4) of the said Act after the period of six years from the date of registration of the document in question, which was registered in June 1995, the said proceedings and impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 were clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and therefore, without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 being without jurisdiction and illegal, the same is set aside.