JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to refund the amount of additional stamp duty of Rs.49,75,461/- inclusive of fine of Rs.250/- to the petitioner paid by it with 12% interest from the date of payment till realization with cost thereon. 2. This Court has issued notice on 21.1.2008. The petition was, thereafter, admitted on 17.11.2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Mayo Hospital (now in liquidation) is company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. By order dated 11.2.2004 passed in Company Petition No.152 of 1995 and 181 of 1998 Mayo Hospital was directed to be wound up by this Court and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the Company and he took possession of all the assets of the Mayo Hospital. By subsequent various orders passed by this Court, Sale Committee was formed and necessary steps to sell the properties of Mayo Hospital were taken. The Government Approved Valuer estimated the value of the assets of Mayo Hospital at Rs.17,53,44,000/-. The Sale Committee then took steps to sell the assets of Mayo Hospital in pursuance of advertisement. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the properties of the Mayo Hospital were in such condition that it was not able to fetch even the price estimated by the valuer. In the past there were advertisements twice but no one could bid even to the nearer price. Hence, the Sale Committee accepted the offer of the petitioner. Eventually the Official Liquidator had taken out proceedings for finalization of sale in favour of the petitioner. By order dated 19.9.2006 this Court has accepted the final offer of the petitioner of Rs.2420 lacs for all assets of Mayo Hospital and directed the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the assets and to execute sale deed. The assets of Mayo Hospital include its immovable property, inter alia freehold non-agricultural land admeasuring 36,522 Sq.Mtrs. bearing Revenue Survey No.1262, 1264, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1305 and 1359 and building thereon situated in Village : Harni, Harni Savli Road, Vadodara. The assets of Mayo Hospital include its immovable property, inter alia freehold non-agricultural land admeasuring 36,522 Sq.Mtrs. bearing Revenue Survey No.1262, 1264, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1305 and 1359 and building thereon situated in Village : Harni, Harni Savli Road, Vadodara. The petitioner paid entire consideration of Rs.24.20 crores before execution of Sale Deed. Since offer of the petitioner was composite offer for its aforesaid immovable and other movable assets such as plant and machinery, the consideration towards land and building has been fixed at Rs.15,48,81,000/- and Rs.5,88,53,400/- respectively. Accordingly, conveyance deed for land and building has been executed for consideration of Rs.21,37,34,400/- on 15.7.2007. The petitioner was handed over possession of the assets on 31.1.2007. The conveyance deed has been sent for registration with Sub Registrar, Vibhag-III, Vadodara which has been registered vide Sr. No.5587. Since the petitioner was to pay the stamp duty and all expenses, as per the Sale Deed, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty of Rs.1,04,73,000/- on sale consideration vide Demand Draft No.938563 dated 29.5.2007 payable at SBI, Baroda. The petitioner has also paid registration charges at 1% amounting to Rs.21,37,344/- in cash. 5. The petitioner applied for loan of Rs.50 crores from Punjab National Bank which has been sanctioned and Punjab National Bank already disbursed Rs.19.93 crores so as to enable the petitioner to buy the property. However, as per the Agreement with Punjab National Bank the petitioner had mortgaged land and building by surrendering original title deeds of the property in question. In this regard the petitioner had received a letter from Punjab National Bank dated 3.3.2008 asking the petitioner to provide title deed by 10.3.2008. The petitioner was also intimated that failing to provide title deed would compel the Bank to cancel the loan. The petitioner, therefore, made an inquiry with the Sub Registrar office and requested to release the original conveyance deed. At that time it has been informed that document would not be released as the petitioner has not paid adequate stamp duty and it has been sent for determination of market value. The petitioner was also informed that unless the stamp duty calculated at the rate by the Valuation Department has been paid, the document would not be released. The petitioner was, therefore, left with no other alternative but to pay the additional stamp duty demanded by the Dy. The petitioner was also informed that unless the stamp duty calculated at the rate by the Valuation Department has been paid, the document would not be released. The petitioner was, therefore, left with no other alternative but to pay the additional stamp duty demanded by the Dy. Collector under protest so as to get released the deed and deposit it to Punjab National Bank. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was never intimated about the fact of document sent for determination nor received any show cause notice from the office of respondent. But having come to know it has submitted its written representation dated 11.3.2008 inter alia pointing out the position of the land and building, area being underdeveloped, purchase of property before 1.4.2006 and requested to consider all these points and also requested to give opportunity of personal hearing to represent case and to produce documentary evidence in support of its contentions. The petitioner waited for the written intimation / notice from the respondent. The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 26.3.2008 when its representative visited personally on 26.3.2008 asking it to come for further hearing and produce evidence on the date intimated by the respondent No.3. The petitioner, therefore, waited for further intimation so as to produce documents and make oral submissions. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, it has received order dated 26.3.2008 from the respondent on 1.7.2008. While going through the said order the petitioner came to know that it referred to show cause notice dated 26.3.2008 asking the petitioner to produce evidence and to submit further details, which in fact was given to it on the same day. The order dated 26.3.2008 refers to the issuance of notice dated 26.3.2008 and the date of passing of the order is also same. Thus, as such no opportunity has been given to the petitioner and issuance of so called notice dated 26.3.2008 was merely a cover up story. 7. By the said order the respondent fixed the market price of the property registered vide Nondh No.5587 dated 15.6.2007 at Rs.31,52,69,600/- and accordingly held that stamp duty of Rs.1,54,48,299/- would be payable. Since the petitioner had already paid stamp duty of Rs.1,04,73,000/- the respondent therefore ordered to recover from the petitioner balance amount of Rs.49,75,460/- inclusive of cost of Rs.250/- 8. Since the petitioner had already paid stamp duty of Rs.1,04,73,000/- the respondent therefore ordered to recover from the petitioner balance amount of Rs.49,75,460/- inclusive of cost of Rs.250/- 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the said order it has been mentioned that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the amount of deficit stamp duty and accordingly paid by the petitioner, which however, in fact paid by the petitioner under protest pending determination of market value of the property. The petitioner had in fact made an application to that effect and requested review the said order. The said request has however been rejected by the respondent by order dated 8.7.2008 while stating that it has no power to review the order dated 26.3.2008 under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.3.2008 the petitioner preferred Appeal before the respondent No.2. It has been stated that the order dated 26.3.2008 was received by the petitioner on 21.7.2008 and Appeal has been filed in time. The respondent No.2 however without applying his mind dismissed the said Appeal vide order dated 16.9.2008 stating therein that the Appeal has been preferred beyond the specified period of 90 days and hence the Appeal was not accepted. 10. Ms.Paurami B. Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 has fixed the market value of the property at Rs.31,52,69,600/- vide order dated 26.3.2008 without taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner in its representation dated 11.3.2008. The said order is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory without any basis and it shows total non-application of mind and in gross violation of principle of natural justice. She has further submitted that the respondent No.3 completely ignored the fact that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner in the auction held by this Court and hence consideration set forth in the document No.5587 at Rs.21,37,34,400/- has been sufficient and he ought to have certified that the deed has been fully stamped. The offer made by the petitioner of Rs.24.20 crores was much more higher than the estimated value of the property of Rs.1753 lacs and hence while considering overall aspects and fact that in the past efforts to sell the assets of Mayo hospital were failed twice. The offer made by the petitioner of Rs.24.20 crores was much more higher than the estimated value of the property of Rs.1753 lacs and hence while considering overall aspects and fact that in the past efforts to sell the assets of Mayo hospital were failed twice. The said assets were sold to the petitioner and the price of the land and building was fixed at Rs.21,37,34,400/- which has been just, reasonable and proper and which was not required to be disturbed. 11. Ms.Sheth further submitted that the order dated 26.3.2008 does not mention issuance of show cause notice prior to 26.3.2008. Thus, admittedly no notice has been issued prior to 26.3.2008 and the order has already been passed on 26.3.2008 i.e. on the same date on which the said show cause notice dated 26.3.2008 has been served to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 on the one hand mentioned in the order dated 26.3.2008 that the petitioner has been issued show cause notice dated 26.3.2008 as required under Rule 4(2) and called upon to explain within 15 days, whereas immediately passed the order dated 26.3.2008 on the same day even without waiting for explanation. Thus, so called notice dated 26.3.2008 was nothing but an eye wash and it clearly establishes the fact that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner and the order passed by the authority is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 12. Ms.Sheth has further submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 which is alleged to be passed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1984, is illegal and contrary to the provisions or Rule 4 of the said Rules of 1984 inasmuch as no reasons or materials are revealed in the order passed by the respondent No.3 for determining the market value of the property. The order passed by the respondent No.3 also does not state as to which documents were relied upon by the respondent No.2 or what was the basis or material available before him to arrive at the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs.31,59,69,600/-. The order passed by the respondent No.3 also does not state as to which documents were relied upon by the respondent No.2 or what was the basis or material available before him to arrive at the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs.31,59,69,600/-. If the proper opportunity would have been given to the petitioner it would have shown the materials to the respondent in support of its contention and would have satisfied the respondent that the consideration mentioned in the deed has been much higher than the estimated value of the property and accordingly full stamp duty has been paid. She has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 which is without any material whatsoever and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable and excessive and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Ms.Sheth further submitted that the respondent has not assigned reasons or given justifications for fixing higher market value than mentioned in deed of conveyance. The respondent No.3 has totally ignored the factors considered by this Court while accepting the highest offer of the petitioner. Not only that even the factors mentioned n representation dated 11.3.2008 have not been considered. If they would have been considered, then the respondent No.3 would not have passed order dated 26.3.2008. This clearly shows that the order passed by the respondent No.3 is absolutely unjust, erroneous and it shows total non-application of mind and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Ms.Sheth further submitted that the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 is equally illegal, unjust, improper and suffers from total non-application of mind inasmuch as the respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate the fact that the order dated 26.3.2008 was served upon the petitioner only on 1.7.2008 and the appeal was preferred by 7.8.2008 which was well within period of limitation. She has, therefore, submitted that the respondent No.2 should not have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the Appeal is barred by limitation. 15. On notice being served, an affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent No.3 Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Vadodara. Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has submitted on the basis of this affidavit that the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Dy. 15. On notice being served, an affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent No.3 Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Vadodara. Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has submitted on the basis of this affidavit that the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Vadodara and order dated 16.9.2008 passed by Chief Controlling, Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, are just and proper and both the authorities below have passed the order as per the provisions of law. He has further submitted that the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Dy. Collector was passed under Section-32A of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, an appeal against which order would lie before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53(1) of the Act. However, the petitioner has filed Appeal under Section 32A of the Act. He has further submitted that as per Section 53(1) of the Act the Appeal requires to be filed within 90 days of the order passed under Section 32A of the Act. The petitioner has mentioned wrong section in the memo of Appeal and Appeal was also filed after period of limitation and, therefore, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 16.9.2008. 16. Mr.Soni has further submitted that the petitioner has tried to contend before this Court that on 26.3.2008, that is the date on which the Dy. Collector has passed the order, the petitioner was given impression that the matter is adjourned and the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was aware about the hearing and final adjudication of the matter. The notice was issued on 26.3.2008 and the same was received by the Authorized Officer of the petitioner Company on the same date. The Authorized Officer of the Company has shown his willingness to pay the amount indicated in the notice itself and, therefore, there is no question of hearing of the matter by the Dy. Collector. The Authorized Officer has requested the Dy. Collector to issue challan. A copy of the notice dated 26.3.2008 and copy of the Register of the Challan maintained by the office of the Dy. Collector is produced on the record of this petition. It clearly shows that on 26.3.2008 the Officer of the petitioner Company has signed both the documents. Collector. The Authorized Officer has requested the Dy. Collector to issue challan. A copy of the notice dated 26.3.2008 and copy of the Register of the Challan maintained by the office of the Dy. Collector is produced on the record of this petition. It clearly shows that on 26.3.2008 the Officer of the petitioner Company has signed both the documents. Thus, it would become clear that the petitioner was aware about passing of the order dated 26.3.2008 on the same day. The petitioner has tried to mislead this Court while contending that the petitioner was not aware about the order dated 26.3.2008. In the order itself the authority has made it clear that since the party is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty as per notice, the order is passed. He has, therefore, submitted that the Appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and hence this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 17. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions and correct legal position on the subject, the Court is of the view that both the authorities below have committed an error in law as well as on facts in determining and/or confirming the market value of the property in question at Rs.31,52,69,600/- as against Rs.21,37,34,400/- shown by the petitioner in the deed of conveyance executed on 15.7.2007 and thereby raised a demand of Rs.49,75,461/- inclusive of cost of Rs.250. It is very strange and surprising that the show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Collector on 26.3.2008 calling upon the petitioner to offer its explanation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and at the same time passing the order on the same date i.e. 26.3.2008. Even if it is assumed that the show cause notice was served on the representative of the petitioner on the same date i.e. 26.3.2008 and his signature was obtained on the said show cause notice, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has agreed to enhance market value proposed to be determined by him in the show cause notice. It cannot also be presumed that the petitioner has agreed to waive its right to offer the explanation or to agree with the Dy. It cannot also be presumed that the petitioner has agreed to waive its right to offer the explanation or to agree with the Dy. Collector's stand that the order determining the enhanced market value should be passed on the same day. Simply because the petitioner has paid the deficit stamp duty looking to the urgency in the matter and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that when the said payment was made by the petitioner without any protest or after waiving his rights to challenge the said order. Thus, the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-reply filed before the Court is not acceptable and the impugned order of the Dy. Collector cannot be justified on any ground. 18. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had also committed grave error of law and facts and without entertaining the Appeal on merits, in a very casual manner the Appeal was dismissed simply on the ground that the said Appeal was filed after the expiry of the period of 90 days. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record which suggests that the order passed by the Dy. Collector was served on the petitioner on the same day i.e. 26.3.2008. It was a specific case of the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority that the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Dy. Collector was received by the petitioner on 1.7.2008 i.e. almost 14 weeks after the date of the said order. The petitioner has also raised a specific ground in the Appeal that the petitioner has made the payment under protest, pending determination of the market value. Despite this fact, it was mentioned in the order that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the amount of deficit stamp duty and accordingly the same was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 5.7.2008 requesting the Dy. Collector to review the said order. However, the said request was turned down by the Dy. Collector vide order dated 8.7.2008 stating therein that he has no power to review the order dated 26.3.2008 under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an Appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on or about 7.8.2008. The order dated 26.3.2008 was received by the petitioner on 1.7.2008 and the Appeal was filed on 7.8.2008. Collector vide order dated 8.7.2008 stating therein that he has no power to review the order dated 26.3.2008 under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an Appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on or about 7.8.2008. The order dated 26.3.2008 was received by the petitioner on 1.7.2008 and the Appeal was filed on 7.8.2008. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said Appeal was barred by limitation. Even if there is any doubt or dispute with regard to the date of receipt of the order dated 26.3.2008, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority should have called for the explanation from the petitioner before exparte deciding the petitioner's Appeal vide his order dated 7.9.2008 by simply writing a letter to the petitioner stating therein that the Appeal presented by the petitioner was not within the period of limitation as provided under Section 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act. This order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is, therefore, absolutely illegal, unlawful, contrary to the provisions of the Act, against settled legal position and violative of principles of natural justice and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 19. Both the authorities below have proceeded absolutely on erroneous premises and they have taken for granted that the petitioner has agreed to enhance the market value proposed to be determined by the Dy. Collector. 20. If one considers the merits of the matter there is no dispute about the fact that the property was acquired by the petitioner through an auction sale conducted before the Court at the behest of the Official Liquidator as the property was originally belonging to Mayo Hospital, a Company in liquidation. Since the petitioner stood the highest bidder before the Court, the sale was confirmed in its favour. Hence there is no question of any under estimate of the value of the properties. The valuer has estimated the value of properties at Rs.17,53,44,000/- whereas the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner for Rs.24.20 crores. The value of the land and building has been fixed at Rs.15,48,81,000/-and Rs.5,88,53,400/-. While determining the market value of the property at Rs.31,52,69,600/-, the Dy. Collector has not cited any comparative sale instance nor referred to any documentary evidence. The value of the land and building has been fixed at Rs.15,48,81,000/-and Rs.5,88,53,400/-. While determining the market value of the property at Rs.31,52,69,600/-, the Dy. Collector has not cited any comparative sale instance nor referred to any documentary evidence. Though in the order it is mentioned that vide letter dated 11.3.2008 certain documentary evidence with regard to property in question for the purpose of determination of the market value of the property was called for, there is no reference of this letter in the show cause notice issued by the Dy. Collector on 26.3.2008. It is the specific case of the petitioner that such letter was never issued by the petitioner. Moreover in the show cause notice it is observed that while temporarily determining the fair market value of the property in question at Rs.31,52,69,600/- the Dy. Collector has taken into consideration the fair market value of other properties, which are registered with the Sub Registrar. However, not a single instance has been pointed out by the Dy. Collector in his order dated 26.3.2008. The Dy. Collector has also not taken into consideration the fact that the property was acquired by the petitioner under the Court auction and hence unless some cogent, clear and unequivocal evidence is brought on record showing the higher value then the price at which the said property was acquired by the petitioner under Court auction, the said price should not be disturbed. 21. Taking any view of the matter the impugned order passed by the authorities below cannot be held to be justified and hence the same are quashed and set aside with a direction to the Dy. Collector to decide and determine the market value of the property in question afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and ultimately if the sale price indicated by the petitioner in the sale deed which is based on the auction price, is sought to be disturbed, he should have brought some independent and convincing material on record and, thereafter, decided the fair market value of the properties in question. Since the matter is remanded to the Dy. Since the matter is remanded to the Dy. Collector and issue regarding fair market value is yet to be adjudicated pursuant to the direction of this Court, the amount already deposited by the petitioner shall remain with the authorities and if the value that may be determined comes to less than the value earlier determined by the Dy. Collector and if the petitioner is entitled to refund on such redetermination, the excess amount should be returned to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. 22. Subject to the aforesaid directions and observations, this petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.