MEHRAJUNBIBI SHAHNAJARKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mehrajunbibi Shahnajarkhan Pathan has preferred the present petition, challenging the order dated 7.1.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-E) in respect of the deed No.5028 of 2004, alleging inter alia that the deed in question was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 19.10.2004, and therefore, the respondent No.4 could not have exercised the jurisdiction 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. According to the petitioner, in similar cases, the High Court had set aside such orders.

(2.) The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.3 by filing 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 limitation prescribed in Section 32A(4) could not be made applicable. It has also been contended that the petition has been filed without exhausting the alternative remedy under Section 53 of the said Act.

(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 dated 7.1.2012 passed by the respondent No.4 without exhausting alternative remedy available under Section 53 of the said Act and that too, after a period of about four years of passing of the impugned order by the respondent No.4. Further it appears from the impugned order dated 7.1.2012 that the petitioner had not remained present before the respondent No.4 though the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 32A(1) of the said Act. Pertinently, it is not the case of the petitioner that she had not received the notice issued by the respondent No.4 under Section 32A(1) of the said Act.