YADAVRAO GANPATROA RAJE Vs. TAHSILDAR STAMP AND VALUATIONOFFICE OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR STAMP AND VALUATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Thorat for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Chinchalikar for the respondents/State.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged Notice dated 21st May 1992 (Exhibit-C) which is pursuant to the provisional order of the same date by Respondent No.1. The petitioner has challenged validity of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules 1981 and certain other provisions of the said Act. However, learned advocate Mr.Thorat for the petitioner conceded that this issue was decided by court and it was no-longer open to him to challenge the same again. Therefore, he restricted himself to other prayers viz. legality and validity of the notice dated 21st May 1992 (Exhibit C).

(3.) The petitioner has purchased some agricultural land at village Dindori Taluka Dindori Dist.Nashik. The agreement for sale was registered on 23.10.1980 for Rs.62,000/- out of which Rs.7000/- was paid on the date of the agreement. Thereafter a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner on 15.10.1981 on payment of balance of consideration of Rs.55,000/-. Whatever stamp duty was payable on this sum shown in the sale deed was paid by the petitioner along with registration fee etc. The sale deed was for Rs.62,000/- However, for the first time on 14.10.1988, the Sub Divisional Officer, Nashik issued notice to the petitioner under the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules 1981 calling upon him to make his submissions for the contention of the Sub Divisional Officer that the property which was the subject of the sale was not properly valued and no proper stamp duty was paid. The petitioner gave reply to this notice on 21.11.1988. However, thereafter nothing was done by the Sub Divisional Officer. Then on 21st May 1992 the Deputy Collector, Stamp Valuation, Nashik, issued a fresh notice under Rule 3(5) of the aforesaid Rules and also communicated the provisional order he had passed in this regard and, then called upon the petitioner to show cause if he is not agreeable with the provisional order. It is this subsequent notice dated 21st May 1992 and the provisional order of the same date that is challenged in the present petition.