Smt. Bhagwati Gupta vs State of MP and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 27.4.2003 passed by Collector of Stamp and District Registrar, Gwalior (Annexure P/3), which was affirmed by Additional Commissioner in Case No.388/2004-2005/appeal stamp dated 26.6.2006 (Annexure P/2). The appellate order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12.12.2006 rejecting the appeal (Annexure P/1) is also under challenge.

Shri N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was served about the proceedings before the Collector of Stamp and District Registrar, Gwalior and without service of notice and without hearing the petitioner the order dated 27.4.2003 is passed. Learned counsel submits that valuation was totally contrary to law and is also factually incorrect and if the petitioner would have been given an opportunity by the said authority, she would have been in a position to demonstrate the position of her land which would have decided the amount of stamp differently. In absence of that opportunity, the petitioner is badly prejudiced and property is not properly valued by the said authority. Both the appellate authorities have not dealt with the specific ground of the petitioner that she has not been served with any notice and attacking on Annexure P/3 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the satisfaction of the Collector of Stamp is recorded only with regard to service of notice to one non-applicant Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta and there is no finding and satisfaction that notices have been served on the petitioner. In the return also, Shri Gupta submits, that the contention of the petitioner is not refuted nor any document is filed by the State to show that the petitioner was served with any notice in the proceedings (Annexure P/3).

Shri Pravin Newaskar, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has preferred this petition after two years and on this ground only petition may be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

I find force in the argument of Shri N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to show that notices of Annexure P/3 proceedings were served on the petitioner. The appellate authorities have not dealt with this specific point raised by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to quash the order dated 27.4.2003 to the extent it relates to the present petitioner and also both the appellate orders, Annexures P/1 and P/2.

Shri N.K.Gupta undertakes that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of Collector of Stamp and District Registrar on 28th February, 2012 along with the copy of this order. The said authority is directed to hear the petitioner and re-decide the question of valuation of property of the petitioner in accordance with law. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Since the principles of natural justice are violated and petitioner''s valuable rights are infringed, in the opinion of this Court, the petition cannot be dismissed mainly on the ground of two years delay.

In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 (to the extent it relates to the petitioner) are quashed and set aside with the aforesaid direction. No costs.