P.N.BHAGWATI, P.D.DESAI - (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated February 17 1965 passed by the Collector of Kaira who is the respondent herein under sec. 39(1)(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act. By the said order the respondent directed tit a sum of Rs. 500/being the deficit stamp duty and a further sum of Rs. 1500/being the amount of penalty be recovered from the first petitioner who had allegedly presented an insufficiently stamped instrument of gift for registration before the Sub Registrar of Anand.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. One Bafatisha Jivasha was the original owner of an open plot of land bearing survey No. 2435/1-2 admeasuring 32 Gunthas situate in Anand District Kaira. In or about 1956-57 two building each consisting of 15 singleroom tenements were constructed upon the said open plot of land. By an instrument dated January 15 1958 Bafatisha Jivasha made a gift of one of the said two buildings known as Rajabsha Quarters to his daughter Hasinabibi who is the mother of the petitioners. Hasinabibi in her turn made a gift of the said property to the petitioners by an instrument of gift dated April 29 1963 In the said instrument of gift the property in question was valued at Rs. 20 0 The instrument was duly presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar at Anand by the first petitioner. The Sub-Registrar impounded the said instrument of gift under sec. 33 of the Act as it appeared to him that it was not duly stamped and sent it to the respondent under sec. 37(2) of the Act. The respondent thereupon passed the impugned order on February 17 1965 under sec. 39(1)(b) of the Act valuing the properly in question at Rs. 30 0 and further directing that the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 500/together with the penalty of Rs. 1500/be recovered from the first petitioner. The order was served upon the petitioners on 20th February 1965 Closely on the heels of the said order followed a notice under sec. 200 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which was served upon the first petitioner stating that since the amount payable by the first petitioner under the impugned order was not paid till the date of the notice the Revenue Officer of the Taluka was authorised to enter the house of the first petitioner and recover the said amount within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice. The petitioners thereupon filed the present petition challenging the impugned order and praying that the same be quashed and set aside.
(3.) On behalf of the petitioners the impugned order is challenged on diverse grounds; but we need to take notice only of two grounds which are fatal to the validity of the order. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding before the Collector under sec. 39 of the Act is a quasi judicial proceeding and that the Collector in exercising his powers under the said section is bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that in a proceeding under the said section the Collector is also bound to make a speaking order i. e. an order which on the face of it discloses the reasons in support of the findings given in the said order. In the instant case before making the impugned order the Collector has failed to give any opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case nor has he made a speaking order and therefore according to the petitioners the order is vitiated.;