JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. The petitioner questions the legality of order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by respondent No. 2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Revision Application of the petitioner filed under Section 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act (now Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958). 2. Also challenged is the order dated 29th October, 2001 passed by Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organisation which was taken before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority whereby the Deputy Collector demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 02,70,990/- plus penalty of Rs. 250/-, aggregating to Rs. 02,71,240/- from the petitioner in respect of Sale Deed dated 29th September, 2000. The respondent No. 2 confirmed the said order. 3. It is necessary to set out relevant facts. The petitioner purchased bungalow No. 18-B, Navjivan (Kalyan) Cooperative Housing Society Limited by getting executed two Deeds of Sale in part. The first floor of the bungalow along with undivided interest in the land having construction of 98 Sq. Meters approximately came to be purchased by registered Sale Deed dated 18th January, 2000 for a consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/-. For the ground floor along with cellar and undivided interest in the land of the very bungalow admeasuring 174 Sq. Meters area inclusive of cellar, came to be purchased by way of another Sale Deed dated 29th September, 2000. Consideration for the same was Rs. 22,00,000/-. 3.1 It appears that in exercise of powers under Section 32A of the Act read with Rule 4(i) of the Bombay Stamp Determination of Market Value of Property Rules, 1984, the Deputy Collector issued a notice dated 29th December, 2000 in respect of the said document being registered Sale Deed No. 3235 dated 29th September, 2000. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why market value of the property should not be determined as Rs. 49,52,300/-, which resulted into the impugned order. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Tirthraj Pandya for the respondent authorities. 4.1 As noticed, the purchase of the property-bungalow by the petitioner was divided into two registered Sale Deeds as above. The first Sale Deed was in respect of first floor with 98 Sq. Meters of construction area where consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- was passed and amount of Rs. 01,98,625/- towards stamp duty was paid on the basis of the market value determined at Rs. The first Sale Deed was in respect of first floor with 98 Sq. Meters of construction area where consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- was passed and amount of Rs. 01,98,625/- towards stamp duty was paid on the basis of the market value determined at Rs. 26,48,300/-, as per order dated 20th November, 2004 of respondent No. 3-Deputy Collector. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,35,000/- at the time of execution. It appears that deficit stamp duty of Rs. 63,625/- was demanded in respect of the said transaction-Sale Deed. The petitioner paid Rs. 31,815/- on 07th January, 2005 towards the said demand taking benefit under the Amnesty Scheme. The other sale document involved the part of the same bungalow, that is ground floor and basement, having constructed area of 174 Sq. Meters and 480 Sq. Meters land area. The consideration for the said sale was Rs. 22,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the said second Sale Deed, stamp duty of Rs. 02,20,000/- was paid. The Deputy Collector, however, by aforesaid order dated 29th September, 2000 fixed the market value for the said part of the property conveyed at Rs. 49,09,823/-, consequently Rs. 04,90,990/- plus penalty of Rs. 250/-came to be adjudged to be payable by the petitioner. The deficit stamp duty was demanded by the authorities as per the orders impugned. 5. From the facts narrated above, it is seen that in respect of the second document of sale, order was passed on 29th October, 2001 by the Deputy Collector asking to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 02,70,990/- plus penalty of Rs. 250/-. It was an ex-parte order. When the said order was passed, the determination regarding stamp duty payable in respect of the first document of sale was not finalised. In fact, notice dated 25th March, 2004 came to be issued in respect of the first document dated 18th January, 2000. The petitioner has submitted that he was under bona fide impression that the said order of recovery was in respect of the entire property. According to the petitioner, he therefore accepted the order to avoid further litigation and taking the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme prevalent, paid the deficit stamp duty. He received back document of first Sale Deed, however did not receive the subsequent document No. 3235 dated 29th September, 2000. According to the petitioner, he therefore accepted the order to avoid further litigation and taking the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme prevalent, paid the deficit stamp duty. He received back document of first Sale Deed, however did not receive the subsequent document No. 3235 dated 29th September, 2000. 5.1 When the petitioner approached the authority to get back the second Sale Deed, he was informed that an order was already passed on 28th October, 2001. In other words, order dated 28th October, 2001 was never received by the petitioner even as the aforementioned order for deficit stamp duty in respect of first document came to be passed on 30th November, 2004 and the petitioner paid the stamp duty demanded under the Amnesty Scheme. When the petitioner had no knowledge about order dated 28th October, 2001 as the same was not received by him, his submission could be accepted that he was under an honest impression that order dated 30th November, 2004 was in respect of the entire property. 5.2 There is another pertinent aspect. Since the petitioner had purchased one property by means of two registered Sale Deeds, he had requested the competent authority to consolidate both the documents for the purpose of assessment of market value and levy of stamp duty. It is uncontrovertedly stated by the petitioner that the said request was accepted by the authority and necessary noting in that regard on the files was also made. However the authority thereafter proceeded to determine the stamp duty for both the documents, though for different part of one single property, separately and two separate orders came to be passed demanding deficit stamp duty in respect of each. 5.3 Relying on the contents of the Valuation Report of the Valuer produced on record learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the building in question was very old and its life was almost over. The market value was indicated to be Rs. 37,64,500/- for both land and building by the Valuer. With reference to the said aspect, it was submitted that the authority committed a clear error in determining the market value at Rs. 49,09,823/- as per separate order dated 29th October, 2001 which was towards only half portion of the property comprising of ground floor and basement having 174 Sq. Meters of constructed area. With reference to the said aspect, it was submitted that the authority committed a clear error in determining the market value at Rs. 49,09,823/- as per separate order dated 29th October, 2001 which was towards only half portion of the property comprising of ground floor and basement having 174 Sq. Meters of constructed area. It was submitted that the said determination was patently on higher side considering the aspect that the property was old and in poor condition as well as that the document was in respect of half-portion only. 5.4 The petition was contested by the respondent authority by filing affidavit-in-reply in which it was mainly submitted that the assessment of the stamp duty was done on the basis of the description mentioned for the property covered under the respective Sale Deed. In the first document No. 440, plot area of 480 Sq. Meters with constructed area on the first floor being 98 Sq. Meters was mentioned and the stamp duty was accordingly charged and was further levied towards deficit stamp duty. The second document No. 3235, according to the authority, was charged on the basis of recitals contained therein which stated that the area of land was 480 Sq. Meters and constructed area on the ground floor of 174 Sq. Meters including the construction of Bhonytaliya. It was stated that as the valuation was put on the basis of the recitals in the respective Sale Deeds and taking into consideration the description of the schedule of the property mentioned therein, stamp duty was correctly assessed. It was submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader from the said fact that the authority would arrive at the market value on the basis of description of the property stated in the document, therefore, in the present case, no error was committed by the authorities. 6. It was submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader from the said fact that the authority would arrive at the market value on the basis of description of the property stated in the document, therefore, in the present case, no error was committed by the authorities. 6. Having considered the facts in totality, having regard the aspect that one property was purchased by subjecting two Sale Deeds for each part; and that the process of determination of market value was carried out by the authority separately though the property conveyed was one property; further that assessment of market value for the portion of the property included in the second Sale Deed was completed but the petitioner was not aware about it and in the meantime; also that the deficit stamp duty on the basis of the valuation of the property in respect of the part which was included in the first Sale Deed taken out for which the petitioner paid the deficit stamp duty under a bona fide impression that it related to the entire property; pertinent also that though the petitioner had requested for consolidation of the proceedings for determination of the stamp duty and valuation by the authority and the Valuer's Report highlighted by the petitioner's learned advocate about condition of the property vis-à-vis the valuation of the property determined by the authority-all these aspects cumulatively taken, render the case fit to be remitted back to the Deputy Collector for re-examination and fresh consideration. 6.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner could rightly rely upon the decisions in (i) Buthabhai Merabhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat [ 2005 (2) GLR 1792 ], (ii) A.P.M.C. Patan v. State of Gujarat [ 2006 (3) GLR 2648 ], (iii) Manubhai Vaghjibhai Dabhi v. State of Gujarat [ 2006 (3) GLR 2177 ] and (iv) Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Special Civil Application No. 5356 of 2006 to submit that the petitioner would be entitled to hearing as well as the copies of relevant documents including the Jantri which may be relied on by the stamp authority in fixing the value of the property for the purpose of charging the stamp duty. These requirements are part of natural justice and the authority would be enjoined in law to comply with them while deciding afresh as per the directions in this order. 7. These requirements are part of natural justice and the authority would be enjoined in law to comply with them while deciding afresh as per the directions in this order. 7. In the aforesaid view, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by respondent No. 2 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as well as order dated 29th October, 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 Deputy Collector are hereby set aside. The Deputy Collector-respondent No. 3 is directed to undertake a fresh exercise for arriving at a market value of the property which was subject matter of sale document bearing No. 3235 dated 29th September, 2000. Respondent No. 3 shall take fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing. Before undertaking the said exercise, the Deputy collector shall cause furnish the copies of the documents which may be relied on by him including the relevant extract of the applicable Jantri. 8. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner. Any observation in this order shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on merits. Quashing of the impugned orders as well as remand of the case are also not reflective of merits of the case of the either side. Respondent No. 3-Deputy Collector shall consider the case afresh on the basis of the relevant material and arrive at his own decision as to the market price and chargeable stamp duty in accordance with law and on merits. 9. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.