The petitioner has filed this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 30.3.2010 of the respondent the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, City Division-1, Rajkot. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to decide the same on merits. The petitioner has also asked for stay against the implementation and execution of notice dated 5.1.2010 issued under Rule-118 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.
This Court has issued notice on 8.4.2010 with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2500/- before this Court on or before the returnable date. The petitioner has accordingly deposited the said amount with this Court.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court an affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent, alongwith which certain documents are annexed.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased property situated at Plot No.O/3, Revenue Survey No.104, Village : Mavadi, by registered Sale Deed dated 16.12.2000. The Dy. Collector thereafter issued notice on 7.11.2001 which was duly served on the petitioner. Thereafter final order was passed on 25.1.2002. However, the said order was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for certified copy of the said order, firstly on 1.11.2006 and thereafter on 13.11.2006. The petitioner, however, did not take any action in 2006 and only in 2010 after obtaining certified copy decided to file Appeal against the said order. However, the Challan could not be issued to the petitioner as the Appeal that may be filed would be barred by limitation.
Heard Mr.Rajesh K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Manisha Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3.
It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner has taken two different stands, firstly in the application dated 19.3.2010, he has stated that the certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 1.11.2006. However, because of the weak financial condition of the petitioner, 25% amount of deficit stamp duty could not be deposited and hence Appeal/Reference could not be filed challenging the said final order. However, in the memo of the petition the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had already applied for certified copy before the respondent authority on 1.11.2006 and same has been delivered by the Dy. Collector on 1.11.2006. Papers were given to the advocate for filing proceedings before the authority. The advocate has not filed Appeal before the authority and, therefore, the petitioner has suffered. Thus, two different stands are taken by the petitioner. The fact still remains that the certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on or about 1.11.2006 and till 2010 no Appeal/Reference was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The Dy. Collector has, therefore, rightly sent the communication dated 30.3.2010 stating therein that since the Appeal/Reference is filed beyond the period of limitation, the same is not maintainable.
Since there is no explanation for the delay of four years and the explanation tendered is also contradictory and not acceptable to the Court, there is no question of entertaining this petition wherein the said order is challenged by the petitioner. The Court, therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, dismisses this petition only on the ground of delay and latches. The respondent authority has no power to condone the delay of four years and hence there is no infirmity or illegality in sending the communication dated 30.3.2010.
In view of above discussion the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. The amount of Rs.2500/- deposited with the Court is ordered to be remitted to the respondent forthwith.
(K. A. PUJ, J.) kks Top