Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 272 (GUJ)

PRADHYAUMANBHAI MOHANLAL PATEL v. STATE

2002-04-03

J.N.PATEL

body2002
JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). WITH the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) ). THE present petitions are preferred against the orders dtd. 16. 4. 98 and 9/12/1999 passed by the Chief Controlling, Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) ). HEARD Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt, for the petitioner and Mr. Kothak, Ld AGP for the respondents. Ms. Brahmbhatt for the petitioners submitted that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are stereotype order and no reasons whatsoever has been recorded while deciding with the appeal. Ms. Brahmbhatt submitted that the petitioners had purchased the properties with tenant and therefore, the said part for taking defence that the property will not fetch 100% market value is at all not considered. Mr. Kothak,agp supported the order of the appellate authority. ( 4 ) ). CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, when the appellate authority viz. Chief Revenue and Controlling Authority is exercising the appellate power, it is obligatory for the authority to consider the defence of the petitioners and the grounds raised in the appeal or at the time of hearing the appeal and then to pass the speaking order. Perusal of the orders, copies whereof annexed at Annexures"c" to the petitions show that the same is a cyclostyled order only some gapes have been filled up and two sentence are added. This clearly shows total non application of mind on the part of the appellate Authority. Therefore, it is clear case of non discharge of statutory function vested with the Chief Revenue and Controlling Authority exercising the appellate powers under Sec. 32 (B) of the Bombay Stamp Act. ( 5 ) ). UNDER these circumstances, since the orders are passed without proper application of mind and since they are not a speaking orders, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that the orders are not speaking orders. ( 6 ) ). ( 5 ) ). UNDER these circumstances, since the orders are passed without proper application of mind and since they are not a speaking orders, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that the orders are not speaking orders. ( 6 ) ). THE petitions are allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the appellate authority with further direction that the appellate authority will rehear the appeals afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners as well as to the Deputy Collector and will render its decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. The Rule in each petition is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. .