VINOD KUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. All these petitions involve common question of law, as such are decided together.

(2.) The petitioners in all those Writ Petitions had presented the document of conveyance for registration in the year 1982 83. At that time, the registering authority did not raise objection about the valuation consideration shown in the document of conveyance. Subsequently, in the year 1990 91, the Respondent authority issued notice to the petitioners in Form I purportedly invoking Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, contending therein that the consideration amount/valuation shown is improper and not according to the true market value. Some of the petitioners preferred appeal before the appellate authority which were dismissed. All the petitioners herein have assailed the order of the authority determining the market value and holding that the consideration shown in the deed of conveyance is not the true market value.

(3.) Mr. Thole, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submits that the authority could not have invoked the jurisdiction U/s 32A after lapse of eight (8) years. The documents were registered in the year 1982 and after the year 1990, the notices were issued. The learned counsel further contends that there was no material on record before the authority to arrive at the conclusion that the market value is not the same as shown in the document of conveyance. According to the learned counsel, it is a case of arbitrary exercise of power. The learned counsel submits that the consideration amount shown in the document of conveyance is the real consideration amount and is the true market value.