Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 29 (GUJ)

Baroda Glass Works v. State of Gujarat

2008-01-24

MD.SHAH

body2008
JUDGMENT : Md. Shah, J. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By way of this petition, the present petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Dy.Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara, dated May, 2007. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U.H. Oza, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that without giving any details regarding determination of market value, in printed form, order was passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara in a casual manner. It is submitted by him that after taking into consideration certain principles regarding determining the market value of the land, he has passed the impugned order on the basis of which the he has valued the property in question at an excessively exorbitant market value and therefore, deficit Stamp Duty of Rs. 8,26,564/- and a fine of Rs. 250/- was required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by him that the respondent authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying the market value, though he has accepted the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. This court has gone through the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Vadodara dated May, 2007. (Date is not given). It transpires from the order passed by the respondent No.2, Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization that he has agreed with the contention raised in the reply filed by the petitioner at page 22 (Annexure 'E') and it is held by the Dy. Collector that the said shed i.e. the property in question is in proper condition and is still having roof. It is also held by the Dy. Collector that he has accepted all the averments made by in the reply filed by the petitioner. In spite of that, on what basis the market value of the property was determined by him is not mentioned in the order. No reasons are assigned for determining the market price of the property in question. 4. Collector that he has accepted all the averments made by in the reply filed by the petitioner. In spite of that, on what basis the market value of the property was determined by him is not mentioned in the order. No reasons are assigned for determining the market price of the property in question. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also apparent that the impugned order is in printed form and only some gaps have been filled up by the authorities without giving any reasons, though he accepted the contentions raised by the petitioner. This clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent-Authorities. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated May, 2007-Annexure "A" passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for taking fresh decision and for passing a speaking order as per the Act, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is further directed to dispose of the matter accordingly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.