Heard Ms. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has brought under challenge the order dated 21.4.2011 passed by the appellate authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-
“9B. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the respondent – authority in STAMP/APPEAL/REVIEW/53-A/183/2010;”
3. So far as the facts involved in present petition are concerned, the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that, he purchased a property bearing R.S.No.2209/1/2 paiki admeasuring 1570 sq mts for non-agricultural purposes i.e. for hotel business. The sale deed was executed and it was tendered for registration before the Sub- Registrar, Danta.
3.1 The petitioner has claimed that the deed was registered at Sr.No.976 on 9.7.2004. It is claimed by the petitioner that subsequently, the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Palanpur considered the said document and determined the market value of the property in question at Rs.9,42,000/- and on that basis, determined the stamp duty at Rs.54,128/- and fine at Rs.250/- was imposed. Accordingly, the competent authority required the petitioner to pay Rs.54,378/-.
3.2 The petitioner has claimed that subsequent to the order passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Palanpur, the petitioner deposited the said amount.
3.3 Thereafter, the Chief Controller of Revenue Authority in exercise of powers under Section 53A commenced suo-motu revision proceedings and after taking relevant aspects into account, determined the market value of the property in question at Rs.31,40,000/- and on that basis, determined stamp duty at Rs.2,63,760/-. The petitioner has claimed that earlier it had paid the stamp duty at Rs.25,200/- and subsequently, i.e. after the order of the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Palanpur, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.54,128/-. The petitioner has claimed that accordingly he has paid a sum of Rs.79,328/- towards the stamp duty and now deficit stamp duty in sum of Rs.1,84,432/- is levied and demanded from the petitioner.
3.4 The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order hence, present petition.
4. Ms. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the competent authority has not assigned any legal and sustainable reasons in support of the determination of the market value and/or determination of the stamp duty under the impugned order dated 21.4.2011. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the competent authority has relied on value of the property mentioned in the Jantri and on that basis, market value had been determined, however, as per the Jantri, the market value of the particular area is shown at higher rate than any other area or even adjoining area.
4.1 The purport of the said submission by learned advocate for the petitioner is that the competent authority should not have relied on the rates mentioned in Jantri and determined the market value of the property in question.
4.2 Except the said contention, any other contentions have not been raised.
5. The petition is resisted by the respondent authority. It is claimed by the respondent authority in its reply affidavit dated 5.12.2011 that:-
“7. ...... I humbly submit that the petitioner has purchased the land for the purpose of hotelbusiness. Area of the land is admeasuring area 15,700 sq. mtrs located 209/1+2 paiki-1 Mouje Teniwada Taluka Wadgam District Banaskantha. In the instant case Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, Palanpur considered very less value of the land, Deputy Collector considered Rs.60 per sq. mtrs instead of Rs.200 which is prevailing as per the market price at the time of registration of the document. This shows apparently less stamp duty, hence there were deficit in stamp duty which comes to Rs.1,84,432/-. The original market value comes to Rs.31,40,000/- as per the Jantri Rate which is prevailing in the year 2004-2005.
8. By way of reply of this para the deponent denied the contention of para 3.3 deponent submits that by way of power granted under section 53-A the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued notice with valuation report dated 10.05.2010 and it was made returnable on 24.05.2010. A copy of the said notice is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R II to this reply.
11. The deponent submit that the petitioner very tactfully not highlighting the matter regarding similar petition had filed before this Hon'ble Court for very same issue. The deponent admits that petitioner had mentioned regarding the earlier petition in ground F but petitioner has suppressed essential information which suppose to have been produced before the Hon'ble Court. The deponent like to submit that the land which was earlier owned by Mr. Mahadev Punamchand Kella purchased the said land from the Shivram Ishwarbhai Patel (present petitioner) by way of registered deed no.776 dated 16.06.2005. Mr. Shivram Ishvarbhai Patel (present petitioner) purchased the said land from Patel Rameshbhai Shankarbhai by way of registered sale deed no.976 dated 09.07.2004. The deponent submits that recent purchaser and present occupier of the said land challenged the same issue for the same land before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2010. The said matter is finally rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 and this Hon'ble Court observed in para 7 of the judgment that “Having, thus, heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order calls for no interference. Admittedly, the land admeasuring 15,700 sq. mt was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005 for the purpose of construction of hotel. The land abuts on national highway. Jantri rates for the land in question were taken into consideration by the concerned authority for fixation of the stamp duty payable”. A copy of the order dated 19.11.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-III to this affidavit in reply.”
6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent authority has claimed that present petitioner has subsequently sold the property in question to one Mr. Mahadev Punamchand Kella. After the said transaction between present petitioner and said Mr. Kella was executed, dispute with reference to the valuation of the property and the stamp duty was raised by the said subsequent purchaser. At that stage also, the authority had determined the market value of the property in question at Rs.31,40,000/- and the said purchaser upon being aggrieved by the valuation, preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2010 which came to be decided and disposed of by order dated 19.11.2010. At that stage also, the determination of valuation of the property was challenged on the same ground, i.e. that the market value was determined on the basis of Jantri, and therefore, the order being bad in law would warrant interference. In the said case the Court has already rejected the said contention and disposed of the petition vide order dated 19.11.2010.
7. So far as the order impugned in present petition is concerned, it emerges from the record that the competent authority has relied on rates mentioned in Jantri and adopted the rate of the property mentioned in the Jantri for the area in question. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the order passed by the competent authority is without any basis or without application of mind. It also cannot be said that the authority has taken into consideration any extraneous reasons or any irrelevant basis. The order also cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the provisions contained under the Act or the Rules. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the order impugned suffers from any error or illegality or arbitrariness. The authority has also recorded that opportunity of hearing was granted and relevant material was also supplied with the notice. Thus, order is not passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The authority relied on the Jantri and the petitioner could not produce any cogent and convincing material or details so as to convince the authority that so far as the property in question is concerned, in view of the peculiar set of facts attached to the property in question, any other rate should be applied and therefore, any error with the impugned order cannot be found. The order does not suffer from any infirmity. Furthermore, the rate determined by the authority and its basis is already examined by the Court under order dated 19.11.2010 in Special Civil Application No.4017 of 2010. Therefore also, any interference is not called for.
The petition fails and is accordingly rejected.
Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc