ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality and validity of the order no. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent no.2- Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39 (b) of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958. 2. Heard Mr. A.S.Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned AGP for the respondents. 3. At the outset, learned AGP submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. A.S.Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities â 1. State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh (AIR 1958 Supreme Court 86(1), 2. Collector of Monghyr and others etc. v. Keshav Prasad Goenka and others etc. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1694. 3. L. Hirday Naran v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 SC 33 . 4. Dr.Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, Sitapur (U.P.P.) and others, AIR 1987 SC 2186 . 5. Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1998(O) GLHEL-SC 34630. 6. Dahyabhai Devjibhai Vasava v. Dy. DIST.DEV. OFFICER (Rev.) BROACH, 20(2) GLR 678. 7. Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank v. M.Anwar, 2000(3)GLR 2403. 8. Tata Chemicals Limited v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat, 2001(2) GLR 1538 . 9. Chauhan Dhulsinh Chatursinh v. District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha & Ors. 10. D.I.D. Franchisees' Association(Gujarat) v. Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle (B.S.N.L.Corpn.) & Ors., 2004(3) GLR 2609. 11. Division Bench Judgment dated 17-1-2007 delivered by this Court Coram: Honourable the Acting Chief Justice Y.R. Meena and Honourable Mr. Justice .S.Dave in Letters Patent Appeal no.74 of 2006 with Civil Application no.278 of 2006 ( Amarsinhji Stationery Ind Ltd. & 1 v. State of Gujarat & 1). 12. Durga Enterprises(P)Ltd.v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (0) GLHEL-SC 36880. 4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein. 5. 12. Durga Enterprises(P)Ltd.v. Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 (0) GLHEL-SC 36880. 4.1 I have gone through the aforesaid authorities and there is no dispute to the propositions laid down therein. 5. This Court is of the opinion that the facts situation in the present case requires that the matter will have to be dealt with by the appellate authority as the controversy is with regard to determination of the market value, especially when during the course of the arguments, learned AGP Mr. Pujari has raised the objection about the availability of statutory alternative remedy, and as such this Court is not required to advert to all those contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No special circumstances or special reasons have been pointed out by the learned Counsel so as to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any error , irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal. The High Court cannot deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure , otherwise, every citizen will knock the doors of the High Court straight away without availing the effective alternative remedy. In the present case the petitioner has not made out any strong case for making a departure. 6. In the present case, the impugned order is passed under Section 39(b) of the Act and remedy of appeal against the said order is provided under Section 53 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the fact that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious and effective. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The question with regard to limitation or lack of jurisdiction can be taken care of by passing necessary directions as the appellate authority can passed order on all the grounds including lack of jurisdiction. 7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. And Another v. Jabar Singh ad Ors reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 112, Para-44 of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. 7. I am fortified in my view by the decision rendered in the case of (1) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. And Another v. Jabar Singh ad Ors reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 112, Para-44 of the judgment, and (2) Sachin Udyog Nagar Sahakari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in 1997(4) GCD 63 (Guj.), Para 2 of the judgment. 8. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner who had not availed of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal is not entitled to any relief in this petition. 9. In the result this Special Civil Application is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering all grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The appellate authority shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation.