SUNIL BANWARILAL LOIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, purchaser of immovable property challenges the notices dated 12/5/1993, 20/7/1993 and provisional order dated 27/9/1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, provisionally determining the valuation of the agricultural field property purchased by him to be Rs. 1,12,500. 00 and demanding total stamp duty with penalty and other over heads totalling to rs. 6,860. 00.

(2.) The petitioner states that on 10/11/1986, he purchased agricultural land ad-measuring 2.25 Acres out of field survey No. 199/200 of mouza Kanhan- pipri, Tahsil Parseoni, District Nagpur, for consideration of Rs. 2250. 00. It is his case that, the entire survey number has bigger area admeasuring 4.33 A, and it was purchased by his vendor Shriram Pandurang Tiwade on 8/6/1984 for Rs. 5000. 00. He contends that on 15/9/1992, he received a notice from the respondent no. 2, whereby it was stated that real valuation of the property was Rs. 2,89,250/-and stamp duty of Rs. 14,855/- was payable on it. The said notice was accompanied by a provisional order passed under section 32-A of the Bombay stamp Act, 1958. The petitioner challenged the said order and notice in Writ petition No. 2147/1992, before this Court, and on 13-11-1992, this Court found that the action initiated was contrary to the provision of Rule 3 of the Bombay stamp (determination of true market value of property) Rules, 1981 and as such was pleased to quash and set aside the same.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 again issued fresh notice under rule 3 (5) on 20-7-1993, itself and at that time stated that the real market value of the property is Rs. 1,12,500/- and as such stamp duty of Rs. 5,587.50 ps. was payable on the sale deed. A provisional order of same date was accompanying this notice and the petitioner was called upon to remain present for hearing on the same date at 12. 00 noon, for finalization of that order. The petitioner approached this Court again in Writ Petition again. Though this Court has admitted the petition for final hearing, stay has been refused.