Heard Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, for the respondent - State.
2. Under order dated 22.11.2011, office was directed to issue notice, making it returnable on 13.12.2011. Since then, the respondents have not filed any reply affidavit opposing the petition and dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner, though almost 7 months have passed since the first order dated 22.11.2011.
3. The petitioner has opposed the conclusion of the respondent authority that the document in question is "bond". The petitioner claims that considering the subject matter and the details and the terms and conditions contained in the document, the document is a Deed of Mortgage. The petition raises question about concession of document.
4. Hence, RULE.
4.1 Interim relief, as prayed for, cannot be granted, at this stage, as it would amount to allowing the petition. Besides this, it is necessary to secure the payment/recovery in the event petitioner transfers/sells the property. The petitioner shall, therefore, deposit the deficient duty with the competent authority, which will be subject to the final decision in present petition.
5. Mr.
Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that while preferring the appeal, the petitioner had already deposited 25% of the demanded amount, i.e. Rs.66,000/-.
6. Therefore, the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner which, as aforesaid, shall be subject to the final decision in present petition.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top