Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 365 (GUJ)

SHOBHNABEN RANCHHODBHAI DETHROJA v. STATE

2002-04-29

J.N.PATEL

body2002
JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). RULE. Mr. IM Pandya, Ld. AGP for the respondent authority waives the service of notice of rule. ( 2 ) ). WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing. ( 3 ) ). HEARD Mr. Bharda for the petitioner and Mr. IM Pandya, Ld. AGP for the respondent. ( 4 ) ). MR. Bharda for the petitioner submitted that, the subject matter of the land in question is bearing survey No. 648/1 and is purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed dtd. 2396, dtd. 7. 10. 96. Mr. Bharda also submitted that, for the land which is purchased by the petitioner the market value is made that of Rs. 2,48,940. 00 and he further submitted that the adjacent land which is purchased by one Smt. Dahiben vide registered sale deed no. 2403, dtd. 18. 10. 1996, bearing survey No. 648, the Collector has accepted the market value as Rs. 64,8588. 00. Mr. Bharda also submitted that not only that when the appeal was preferred as per ground No. 4, this contention was specifically raised before the appellate authority that for the adjacent land, which is purchased immediately after ten days, the valuation is accepted, whereas in case of the petitioner, the value is made on the higher amount. Mr. Bharda submitted that the appellant authority has not at all dealt with the said aspect which goes to the root of the matter and therefore the power has been exercised by the quasi judicial authority without proper application of mind. Hence, he submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority in any case deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) ). ON behalf of the State Government, Mr. IM Pandya for the respondent authority submitted that, the State Government has taken the Jantri valuation as base, which is a valuation made by the valuation department of the State Government. Mr. Pandya also submitted that, as per the Jantri valuation, the market value of the land in question comes to Rs. 1050. 00 per square mtrs. and therefore, he submitted that, taking jantri value as the basis, the order has been passed by the Deputy Collector which is confirmed by the appellate authority. ( 6 ) ). Mr. Pandya also submitted that, as per the Jantri valuation, the market value of the land in question comes to Rs. 1050. 00 per square mtrs. and therefore, he submitted that, taking jantri value as the basis, the order has been passed by the Deputy Collector which is confirmed by the appellate authority. ( 6 ) ). CONSIDERING the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, clearly shows that there is no at all whisper about the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the aspect that the adjacent land valuation which is accepted by the Deputy Collector is of Rs. 64,858. 00. There may be a situation wherein even for the same survey numbers, value of the land may differ, but in any case, when the specific contention has been raised together with the documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal, it was obligatory for the appellate authority to consider the same and to give its findings. ( 7 ) ). I am of the view that, when the appellate authority is exercising the quasi judicial powers it is obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to consider the vital ground raised by the petitioner and to give its findings. Since the said aspect is not considered I am of the view that the appellate authority has committed error apparent on the face of the record and the order of the order of the appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone Hence, the order dtd. 27/06/2000 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in appeal No. 53 of 2000 is quashed and set aside with further directions that the clarification that the appellate Authority shall take up the appeal afresh for hearing and will also give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. After hearing the appellant, the appellate authority shall pass speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. ( 8 ) ). UNDER these circumstances, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost. Rule is made absolute accordingly. D. S. permitted. .