Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Learned Advocate Ms. Mehul S. Shah for the petitioners seeks permission to place on record Notice issued by the authority under Section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 1.1 Permission is granted. 2. In all these matters, a common question is agitated by the petitioners. The question is that, ‘the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty (Valuation), Gandhinagar, by order dated 9th May 2003 refused to take into consideration the document produced by the applicants of Village: Lunasan, Taluka: Kadi, District : Mehsana on the ground that the document pertains to property situated in two different villages, which are situated in different revenue areas and coupled with that, the Talukas and Districts are also different’. The Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty (Valuation) was of the opinion that the document of different districts cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the value of the property. 2.1 The learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the document of the property, which is having common boundary, meaning thereby, the property situated adjacent to the property in question is thrown out on the aforesaid ground only. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that this is ‘not an act of non-application of mind’ but is ‘an act of bureaucratic arrogance’ and therefore, the Court should take a serious view of the matter. 3. The matter was heard in the first half of the day. At the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Maithili Mehta, to enable her to take instructions from the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, the matter was kept in the second half. 3.1 The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, states that, if the Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Court may accordingly direct and it will be considered afresh, in accordance with law. 4. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Mehta is directed to waive service of process of Rule. Rule is accordingly waived. 4.1 At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioners, the matter is taken up for Final Hearing. 5. 4. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Mehta is directed to waive service of process of Rule. Rule is accordingly waived. 4.1 At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioners, the matter is taken up for Final Hearing. 5. Having perused the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty (Valuation) dated 9th May, 2003 and the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dated 27th October, 2010, this Court is of the opinion that the orders suffer from the non-application of mind and consequentially they have resulted into injustice to the petitioners, hence in the interest of justice, the same are required to be quashed with a direction to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners coupled with an opportunity to produce any other material, which the petitioners might have come in possession during this period and then decide the matter in accordance with law. 5.1 Accordingly, the impugned orders and Notice under Section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for deciding the same afresh, after taking into consideration the aforesaid observations. 5.2 It is reiterated that only because of sheer coincidence, the documents of two adjoining adjacent lands happen to be from different revenue areas, is no ground for discarding them. In fact, Rule 8, Clause (a), Sub-rule (v) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984, provides for taking into consideration the ‘value of adjacent area or land in vicinity’. It may sound philosophical to say that, ‘all these boundaries and demarcations are made by men’ but the fact of land being adjacent to another land, cannot be changed and therefore, valuation of the adjacent land, even if it is falling in different revenue areas or different Talukas or Districts, it has to be taken into consideration by the authority while assessing the value of the land in question. 5.3 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is directed to decide the matter as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order. 5.4 With these observations, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. P P P P P