Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 354 (GUJ)

BASHIRUDDIN SADARMIYA BUKHARI v. STATE

2002-04-24

J.N.PATEL

body2002
JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). WITH the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) ). THE present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 13. 10. 99, passed by the respondent No. 1, i. e. the State Government, through its Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in Review Application No. 91 of 1997. ( 3 ) ). HEARD Mr. Pandya for the petitioner and Mr. MK Patle, Ld. AGP for the respondent. ( 4 ) ). MR Pandya for the petitioner submits that the valuation of the property which is made by the competent authority is not on the basis of the market value. Mr. Pandya submitted that the market value of the property is Rs. 80,000. 00 and there is no piece of evidence for arriving at a conclusion that the market value of the property in question is Rs. 3,05,824. 00. Mr. Pandya also submitted that in absence of any material, the order cannot stand in eye of law and therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) ). ON behalf of the State, Mr. MK Patel, Ld. AGP states that he has verified the said aspect from the officer of the Government and as per the Juntri, valuation is made by the valuation department of the State Government. The market value of the property in question is Rs. 3,05,824. 00 and therefore, the market value made by the government which is properly known as jantri value is taken as base for the purpose of findings the shortage of the stamp duty and on the basis of the said valuation, the matter was taken up in review and the order is passed. ( 6 ) ). MR. Pandya submits that, no evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that the value of the land is less then jantri value by the Government. ( 7 ) ). CONSIDERING the above, I am of the view that if the state government has taken the base of jantri for the purpose of arriving at market value, it cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary. ( 7 ) ). CONSIDERING the above, I am of the view that if the state government has taken the base of jantri for the purpose of arriving at market value, it cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable or arbitrary. Unless, there are any special circumstances showing that the value of the property could be less then the said jantri valuation, the Jantri Valuation, can validly taken as the basis for arriving at the market value i. g. if the property is rented property, or the situation of the property is such which does not attract the presumption of the market value, then the matter will have to be considered the independently, upon the evidence produced. Because if the person concerned proves that the valuation of the land is not more or is less than the jantri valuation the authority will be required to examine accordingly. ( 8 ) ). IN the present case, no evidence is produced by the petitioner except the registered sale deed showing that the value of the property is less then jantri value. No other evidence is produced. The document of sale which is a subject matter also does not show any evidence but on the contrary shows that the land was irrigated land. As against this, when the authority has proceeded on the jantri value, in absence of any material produced on record, by the petitioner, showing that the market value is less then the jantri value, I am of the view that the order passed by the State Government is perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same does not call for any interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) ). CONSIDERING the above, the petition fails. Rule discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No orders as to cost. .