Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 610 (GUJ)

VANDANABEN DIPAKBHAI RANA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2006-09-13

D.N.PATEL

body2006
D. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid petitions have been taken up for final hearing by common order, upon request of the Learned Government pleader and the Learned Assistant government Pleader. During the course of hearing of all these petitions, which had started right from 11:30 a. m. onwards, this court had called Secretary, Revenue department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Smt. Vilasiniben Ramchandran, Secretary, revenue Department remained present before this Court at 2:15 p. m. . ( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing, impugned orders passed by the Deputy collector, Stamp Duty Valuation organization/collector of Stamps have been read along with provisions of Bombay Stamp act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the act, 1958") especially section 32-A (4) as well as Rule 4 and Rule 8 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property)Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules, 1984" ). Several reported as well as unreported judgments have been read. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that there is patent violation of the Act,1958 as well as the Rules,1984 and of the judgments delivered by this Court while fixing market value of the properties in question by the concerned Deputy collector/collector of Stamps. Learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court, as under : (i) In the case of NANDADEVI dineshkumar SHARMA V. CHIEF controlling REVENUE AUTHORITY and OTHERS REPORTED IN 2006 (2) GLH 775 . (ii) In the case of NEW KALINDI karnavati CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY ltd. V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND others REPORTED IN 2006 (2) GLR 1735 . (iii) In the case of MAYURKUMAR jayendrabhai PATEL V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND ANOTHER reported IN (2006)12 GHJ 514 ). (iv) In the case of VINAYBHAI p. PATEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND another REPORTED IN (2006)12 GHJ 533 . (v) In the case of A. P. M. C. , PATAN v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported IN (2006)12 GHJ 538 . (vi) In the case of MANUBHAI vaghjibhai DABHI V. STATE OF gujarat AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2006)12 GHJ 646 ). (vii) In the case of BHANUBEN vallabhbhai PATEL V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6160 OF 2006. (vi) In the case of MANUBHAI vaghjibhai DABHI V. STATE OF gujarat AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2006)12 GHJ 646 ). (vii) In the case of BHANUBEN vallabhbhai PATEL V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6160 OF 2006. (viii) In the case of JAYSHRI OIL mill THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR and pah V. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT and OTHERS DECIDED ON 20th june,2006 IN SPECIAL CIVIL application NO. 6159 OF 2006. (ix) In the case of CHANDRIKABEN karshandasbhai FICHADIYA V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT AND others DECIDED ON 20th JUNE,2006 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION N0. 6158 OF 2006. (x) In the case of DEEP construction COMPANY THROUGH power OF ATTORNEY V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6157 OF 2006. (xi) In the case of JOGINDRAPAL bhagvandas KHANNA V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6156 OF 2006. (xii) In the case of SAMANBHAI goganbhai ODEDARA V. DEPUTY collector, RAJKOT AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION N0. 6154 OF 2006. (xiii) In the case of KIRTIKUMAR gandalal GOTECHA AND ANOTHER V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT AND others DECIDED ON 20th JUNE,2006 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6150 OF 2006. (xiv) In the case of MANSUKHLAL chhaganlal PITHVA AND ANOTHER V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 20th JUNE,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1866 OF 2006. (xv) In the case of KAMLESHBHAI kanjibhai PATEL AND OTHERS V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJKOT AND others DECIDED ON 20th JUNE. 2006 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1707 of 2006. (xvi) In the case of INDIAN OIL corporation LIMITED V. STATE OF gujarat AND ANOTHER DECIDED ON 2nd MAY,2006 IN SPECIAL CIVIL application NO. 1450 OF 2006 WITH sca NOS. 6400, 8399, 8527, 8587, 8590, 9221 of 2006. (xvii) In the case of BHARATKUMAR haribhai JAGANI AND ANOTHER V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 9th JANUARY,2006 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24464 of 2005. (xviii) In the case of PRAVIN trikamjibhai PATEL AND OTHERS V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 5th DECEMBER,2005 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21094 OF 2005. (xix) In the case of DILIPKUMAR gangjibhai LALKIYA AND ANOTHER V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 10th OCTOBER,2005 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18064 to 18068 OF 2005 WITH 18070/2005 WITH 18073/2005. (xviii) In the case of PRAVIN trikamjibhai PATEL AND OTHERS V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 5th DECEMBER,2005 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21094 OF 2005. (xix) In the case of DILIPKUMAR gangjibhai LALKIYA AND ANOTHER V/s. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND OTHERS decided ON 10th OCTOBER,2005 IN special CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18064 to 18068 OF 2005 WITH 18070/2005 WITH 18073/2005. (xx) In the case of BHAL nalkantha KHEDOOR MANDAL V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT DECIDED ON 26th july,1999 IN SPECIAL CIVIL application NO. 1731 OF 1999 (CORAM: hon ble CHIEF JUSTICE mr. K. G. BALAKRISHNAN AND HON ble mr. JUSTICE S. D. DAVE ). (xxi) In the case of BUTHABHAI merabhai BHARWAD V. STATE OF gujarat AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2005 (2) GLR 1792 . (xxii) In the case of pradhyaumanbhai MOHANLAL PATEL v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported IN 2003 (1) GLR 454 . ( 3 ) THE Secretary, Revenue department, was called so that repeatation of error on the part of Deputy Collector/collector, stamp Duty Valuation organization can be avoided and ultimately, multifariousness of the petitions can be avoided. Thoroughly non-speaking orders have been passed. The basis on which the notice has been issued has never been supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, it is fairly submitted by the Secretary, revenue Department as well as Learned government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah that these matters may be remanded to the concerned Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty valuation Organisation/ Collector of Stamps/ lowest available authority under the Act, 1958, so that the petitioners may be heard afresh and speaking orders can be passed in all the aforesaid matters. It is understood clearly by the Secretary, Revenue department that despite the Act, 1958 and the Rules, 1984, which have given enough guidelines in detail for fixing market value of the property and despite several judgments, non-speaking and cyclostyled orders have been passed, without giving any details to the petitioners and they deserve to be quashed. Thus, judgments also work as guidelines to the sub-ordinate staff of the secretary, Revenue Department. It is fairly stated by the Secretary, Revenue department that these guidelines will be further reiterated by way of Circular so that while passing afresh order, the provisions of the Act, 1958; the Rules,1984 and the judgments can be followed scrupulously and, therefore, Learned Government Pleader Mr. It is fairly stated by the Secretary, Revenue department that these guidelines will be further reiterated by way of Circular so that while passing afresh order, the provisions of the Act, 1958; the Rules,1984 and the judgments can be followed scrupulously and, therefore, Learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah and the Secretary, Revenue department requested that the impugned orders may be quashed, which has been passed by the Deputy Collector/ Collector of stamps and the matters may be remanded. Those matters, which have been covered under section 32-A (4) of the Act, 1958, the impugned order is quashed as the same is time barred as per section 32-A (4 ). In certain matters, it is observed that the petitioners have no option but to approach the appellate authority. They approached appellate authority but the delay has not been condoned. Requisite amount has not been paid or has been paid partly, in preferring the Appeal. Such order of non-condonation of delay are also hereby quashed. The amount deposited by the petitioners, if any, shall be refunded by the respondent authority upon proper application and upon proper verification of proof of the deposit of the amount. Special Civil Application No. 12055 of 2006 :-In view of the aforesaid judgments and provision of sub-section (4) of section 32-A of the Act, 1958, the impugned order is hereby quashed as the same is time barred. the document in question was executed on 17th September, 1997, whereas, the Notice was issued on 22nd July,2004 by the respondent authority (Annexure "d" to the memo of the petition) and, therefore, there is a clear breach of section 32-A (4) of the act, 1958, which imposes a limitation of 6 years. Thus, except this matter, rest of the matters are hereby remanded for afresh decision by Deputy Collector/ Collector, stamp Duty Valuation Organisation. ( 4 ) THIS common order has been passed mainly because of the request made by the Learned Government Pleader Mr. Sunit Shah in the presence of the Secretary, revenue Department and fairly it is submitted by the Secretary, Revenue department that all care should be taken for issuance of Notice by the Deputy collector, Stamp Duty Valuation organisation/collector of Stamps, so that they may follow all the guidelines as per the act,1958 read with the Rules,1984 and the pronounced judgments. Sunit Shah in the presence of the Secretary, revenue Department and fairly it is submitted by the Secretary, Revenue department that all care should be taken for issuance of Notice by the Deputy collector, Stamp Duty Valuation organisation/collector of Stamps, so that they may follow all the guidelines as per the act,1958 read with the Rules,1984 and the pronounced judgments. Learned Government pleader has also fairly submitted that there is no need to pass separate orders in all the aforesaid petitions as to save public time and public money. Fairness is always desirable from the High Ranking Officer. Both, learned Government Pleader, Shri Sunit shah as well as Smt. Vilasiniben ramchandran, Secretary, Revenue department, State of Gujarat has shown fairness which is befiting to their posts. Court appreciates this positive attitude and zeal on their part to do justice to the petitioners. ( 5 ) IN all the aforesaid of matters, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy collector, Stamp Duty Valuation organization/ Collector of Stamps/ Chief controlling Revenue Authority/ Deputy superitendent of Stamps, State of Gujarat, gandhinagar are hereby quashed and set aside. All the matters are remanded to the concerned Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty valuation Organization / Collector of Stamps for taking a fresh decision and for passing a speaking order, as per the Act, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984 and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The parties will be at liberty to make their submissions before the concerned Deputy collector, Stamp Duty Valuation organization / Collector of Stamps, which may be dealt with by them while passing the orders in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.