(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI)
1. By way of present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - original respondents have challenged the order dated 14.5.2009 passed in captioned petition by which the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the proceedings initiated by the present appellants under the provisions of The Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned Single Judge by relying upon the decision in the case of Shailesh Jadavji Varia vs. Sub-Registrar, Vadodara and others reported in 1996(3) GLR 783 decided by larger bench of this Court, allowed the petition on the ground that the authority have initiated proceedings under Section 32-A of the Act at a belated stage.
2. The brief facts arising from the case are as under:
2.1 That the respondents have purchased agricultural lands bearing Survey No.28, 31/1. 31/8, 33/1 and 33/2 (Final Plot No.8) of Village Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad City ad-measuring 22411 sq.mtrs. That a sale deed was registered with the authorities on 21.6.1999. Thereafter on 13.12.2006 the authority issued a show-cause-notice to the respondents under Section 32(A) of the Act as there was reason to believe that the consideration set forth therein does not approximate to the market value of the property. The respondents filed reply to the said show-cause-notice and filed Special Civil Application No.1178 of 2008 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.1.2008 disposed of the matter and directed the authority to decide the matter within two months. Thereafter the respondents again filed Special Civil Application No.2010 of 2009 as there was delay in deciding the above matter. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 5.3.2009 disposed of the said petition and directed the authority to decide the matter within six weeks from the receipt of the said order keeping in mind that the show-cause-notice was issued after six years from the date of registration of the document.
2.2 Thereafter on 16.3.2009 the authority issued fresh notice to the respondents under the provisions of Section 32(A) of the Act. The respondents filed their reply on 27.3.2009. Thereafter the Deputy Collector, Stamp Valuation passed an order dated 1.4.2009 directing the respondents to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.23,38,378/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the respondents filed captioned petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.5.2009 allowed the said petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Valuation.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the State of Gujarat has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellants and learned counsel Mr.Mehul Suresh Shah for the respondents.
4. It was a specific case of the original petitioners that the notice issued by the Deputy Collector on 13.12.2006 is contrary to the provisions of law and against the law laid down by this Court and therefore required to be quashed and set aside. It was the case of the petitioners that, as per the ratio laid down in case of Shaileshkumar (supra), the authority has failed in explaining the delay in issuing the notice and therefore also the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. It is an admitted position that the sale deed was registered on 21.6.1999 wherein the notice was served on 13.12.2006 i.e. after more than 7 ½ years. The ratio laid down in the case of Shaileshkumar (supra), the question raised before the Full Bench was decided as under:
"Question No.1 First part of Question No.1 is replied in the affirmative, namely, the Registering Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 32-A can exercise powers beyond two years on facts justifying delay."
6. In view of the decision of Full Bench, the authority was bound to justify the delay in issuing/passing the orders after 7 ½ years. In the present case, there is no explanation whatsoever has been put forward for appreciation.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for interference by this Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/ Top