Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 962 (GUJ)

Abdul Umar Sumara v. State of Gujarat

2019-10-17

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) To admit and allow this petition. (B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside letter/order passed by the Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar conveyed vide letter no. Stamp/Tantrik/47/2018/13481-83 dated 03.08.2018 and direct the respondent no. 2 to forthwith implement the decision/report of the District Level Committee dated 12.03.2018 forwarded to the respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2018/21.04.2018 by the respondent no. 4 and make necessary correction of data entry in the Jantri-2011. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to direct the respondent no. 2 to forthwith implement the decision/report of the District Level Committee dated 12.03.2018 forwarded to the respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2018/21.04.2018 by the respondent no. 4 and make necessary correction of data entry in the Jantri-2011. (D) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other appropriate relief as the nature circumstances of the case may require." 3. The brief facts of the present case are that, the petitioner is residing at Village: Ratiya, Taluka-Bhuj, District-Kutch and is owner of land bearing survey nos. 478 and 479 of the said village. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Gujarat declared Jantri in the year 2011 for fixing the price of the lands in the entire State of Gujarat. However, in the said Jantri, the land of the petitioner was not correctly/properly valued. The petitioner therefore, on 1.11.2017 made grievance before the District Level Committee, constituted under the Government Resolution dated 21.09.2010 and 31.03.2011 comprising of the Collector, District Development Officer, Town Planning Officer and Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, with regard to the discrepancies in the Jantri Value of the land of the petitioner. The District Level Committee held meeting on 12.03.2018 to consider the said case whether, there was any error in data of the Jantri-2011, in which the petitioner's land was included and the decision was forwarded to the respondent no. 2-Superintendent of Stamps and Inspector General of Registration, on 28.03.2018. 4. The District Level Committee held meeting on 12.03.2018 to consider the said case whether, there was any error in data of the Jantri-2011, in which the petitioner's land was included and the decision was forwarded to the respondent no. 2-Superintendent of Stamps and Inspector General of Registration, on 28.03.2018. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that by communication dated 03.08.2018, the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Office at Bhuj, was informed by Office of the respondent no. 2 with regard to the Jantri value of the land of survey No. 478 and 479 that the recommendations made by District Level Committee to correct Jantri rates as per the data received in the survey, is rejected by the respondent no. 2 on 01.08.2018. The petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by such communication, has preferred this petition with aforesaid prayers. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondents. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that by the report/order dated 28.03.2018 the District Level committee, so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, in the reported entry no. 11 has stated that reference is made to the respondent no. 2 to make entry as per the rates received in the survey forms which are not reflected in the Jantri-2011 published by the State. He further submitted that the District Level Committee has not stated or submitted or arrived at different valuation rate than what is found in the survey and only the correction in Jantri rates declared in Jantri-2011 were required to be made as per the rates received in the Jantri survey 2011. He therefore, submitted that the respondent no. 2 has no authority under the law to reject such reference made by the District Level Committee headed by respondent no. 3-Collector. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the respondent no. 2 has rightly rejected the reference made by the District Level Committee in view of the Government Resolution dated 18.04.2011, which prescribes that if any rate which is declared in Jantri - 2011 with effect from 01.04.2011 is less than the rate of Jantri -2008, than the Jantri rate of 2011 would be considered as cancelled and only Jantri rates as on 01.04.2008 shall be taken into consideration. It was therefore, submitted that the respondent no. It was therefore, submitted that the respondent no. 2, in view of the Government Resolution dated 18.04.2018, has rejected the reference made by the District Level Committee. She further relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, wherein it is stated that the recommendations issued by the District Level Committee dated 12.03.2018 are not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 18.04.2011. More particularly, in view of the Government Resolution dated 01.10.2012, the communication issued by the respondent no. 2-Superintendent of Stamps is just and proper. Reference was made to the Government Resolution dated 01.10.2012 to point out that when there is difference in the jantri rates declared in the Jantri-2011, for such discrepancy, reference is required to be made to the District Level Committee and thereafter, such decision of the District Level Committee is required to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Stamps and Inspector General of Registration. She therefore, submitted that, such rate of Jantri as per the recommendations of the District Level Committee is found to be less than the jantri rates published in the year 2011 and therefore, in view of the aforesaid resolution passed by the Government, the decision of the District Level Committee is rejected by the respondent no. 2. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by both the sides, it appears that under the Government Resolutions dated 21.09.2010 and 31.03.2011, District Level Committee is required to be formed for correction of typographical error/calculations/error in the data entry or any clerical error, and for that purpose District Level Committee was constituted comprising of District Collector along with District Development Officer, Town Planning Officer and Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, who has to act as member Secretary. In view of the aforesaid Government Resolution, District Level Committee, in its decision dated 12.03.2018 has categorically stated vis-à-vis land of the petitioner that there is difference in the data entry and the jantri rates in the Jantri-2011 are not correct as per forms received in the survey for jantri rates of 2011. Accordingly, reference was made to the respondent no. 2 to correct the mistake in the jantri rates of 2011 in accordance with the rates received in jantri survey forms of 2011 and for that purpose, data entry was to be made as per the forms received in jantri survey 2011 and jantri rates published was to be corrected. However, respondent no. 2 to correct the mistake in the jantri rates of 2011 in accordance with the rates received in jantri survey forms of 2011 and for that purpose, data entry was to be made as per the forms received in jantri survey 2011 and jantri rates published was to be corrected. However, respondent no. 2 wrongly relied upon the Government Resolution dated 18.04.2011 and 01.10.2012 and has without any authority rejected the decision of the District Level Committee. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has failed to point out as to how Government Resolution dated 18.04.2011 can be made applicable in the facts of the case, more particularly, when District Level committee did not suggest or prescribe any new rate of jantri but has only made recommendation to correct in place of jantri rates of 2011 published by the State of Gujarat as per jantri forms received in survey of Jantri of 2011. On specific query made by the Court, this fact could not be controverted by the learned AGP that in the report/order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the District Level Committee only reference was made with regard to the rates which has been received in survey forms of jantri 2011, for which no correct data entry was made and therefore, jantri rates declared in 2011 were not correct. Therefore, only recommendations were made to correct the Jantri rates 2011 as per the forms received in survey by making data entry. 9. In view of the above facts, Government Resolution dated 18.04.2019 is not applicable in the facts of the present case and therefore, reliance placed by the respondent no. 2 on Government Resolution dated 18.04.2011 is without any basis and the impugned communication is therefore, hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 is directed to implement the recommendation made by the District Level committee so far as revenue survey nos. 478 and 479 situated at Village:Ratiya, Taluka-Bhuj, District-Kutch are concerned. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. The petition is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.