Kanubhai Babubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.A. Puj, J.—Rule. Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Looking to the issue involved in this petition, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 30th May, 2001 and 15th May, 2006 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as being without authority of law and jurisdiction.

Heard Mr. M.K. Pathak, learned advocate for Mr. H.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No. 1 on advance copy being served to the office of the Government Pleader.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased one agricultural land bearing Survey No. 147/3 of Village : Bhat admeasuring 1.11 acres of old tenure on 2nd August, 2006. A sale-deed was executed in respect of the said land and stamp duty was paid of Rs. 23,050/- upon the total purchase price being Rs. 1,80,000/-. It is also the case of the petitioner that an exparte order dated 30th May, 2001 was issued demanding differential stamp duty of Rs. 36,656/-. The said order/reference was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in December, 2002. However, a communication was issued by the Deputy Collector on 15th May, 2006 that the said reference was rejected by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority that it was not filed within the period of 60/90 days.

It is the case of the petitioner that the said order was never received by the petitioner and the petitioner came to know only when the notice was received by him on 25th July, 2009 u/s 152 of the Land Revenue Code. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition before this Court.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, the Court is of the view that there is no dispute that the order was passed by the Deputy Collector on 30th May, 2001. The said order was also received by the petitioner and appeal/reference was preferred in December, 2002. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was subsequently informed by the Deputy Collector that by communication dated 15th May, 2006 the reference was rejected by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on the ground of limitation. However, only dispute remain is whether such communication is received by the petitioner or not. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner shifted his residential house and even at the time of filing appeal/reference, new address was given. Despite this fact, a communication dated 15th May, 2006 was sent at Hasol address. The stand of the petitioner is, therefore, accepted to be true as the petitioner was not residing at the address at which the communication was sent.

Even otherwise, the delay in filing the appeal/reference is of hardly about one and half years. Before deciding the appeal an opportunity should have been given by the respondent No. 4. Admittedly, such opportunity was not given. Hence, the order passed in 2006 is violative of the principles of natural justice. Since the petitioner has paid the requisite amount of 25% at the time of filing the appeal and the same has not been decided on merits, the Chief Controlling Revenue authority is hereby directed to decide such appeal on merits, without raising any dispute as to whether the appeal/reference is filed within a period of time limit or not. If the papers are with the Deputy Collector, the same shall be forwarded to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

Since the petitioner has challenged the communication sent by the Deputy Collector in 2006, after more than four years, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent - authorities. On depositing such amount with the respondent - Deputy Collector, the appeal may be heard on merits.

With these directions, the petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.