PRAKASH CHIMANLAL RAVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 26.12.2001.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is a cyclostyled type and non speaking order which reveals total non application of mind and that unreasonably excessive market value has been fixed for the disputed property by the respondent Authority. According to the learned Advocate, no reasons have been assigned by the respondent -Authority for enhancement in the market value of the property than what is referred to in the Sale -Deed. It has also been contended by the learned Advocate that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has also been contended that the relevant guidelines have also not been followed by the respondent -Authority, and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent -Authority for arriving at higher market value is absolutely arbitrary in nature. It is finally contended that the respondent -Authority has fixed the valuation of the property ignoring the Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 as also the guidelines provided by the Bombay Stamp Act 1958, and therefore, the respondent Authority can fix the valuation of the property using different yardsticks which would tantamount to discrimination. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that in a casual manner the respondent -Authority has fixed the market value of the property in question to the tune of Rs.4,06,632/ -, and therefore, deficit stamp duty of Rs.40,670/ - and fine of Rs.750/ - was required to be paid to the authorities. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that the respondent -Authority has not considered the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property in question by paying Rs.1,90,000/ - at a market value and the respondent -Authority has also not considered the market value was as per 'Jantri' decided by the State. Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the respondent - Authorities are required to be quashed and set aside.