Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai vs Deputy on 27 September, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3264/2010 22/ 22 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3264 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PRAVINBHAI
MOTIBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SATYAM Y CHHAYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 27/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Satyam Chhaya on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri on behalf of respondents - State authorities.
In this case, on 15.03.2010, notice was issued by this Court, meanwhile, respondents were directed not to take any coercive steps/ action against petitioner. In present petition, petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.06.2009 (07.07.2009) passed by Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, which was confirmed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar.
According to petitioner, he is permanently residing at city Himmatnagar from generation. Father of petitioner Motibhai expired leaving behind two sons i.e. the petitioner and his brother Shanubhai Motibhai Patel. Smt.Pushpaben is wife of Shanubhai and she is sister-in-law of petitioner. Smt.Pushpaben was holding land bearing Survey No.24 paiki of city Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha admeasuring 31,671.85 sq.mtrs. Said land was converted into non-agriculture land vide order dated 27.05.1996 passed by Collector, Sabarkantha. As per non-agriculture order, out of above referred land, land admeasuring 27,327.85 sq.mtrs. was converted into residential land whereas the land admeasuring 4344 sq.mtrs. was converted for commercial purpose. Smt.Pushpaben has plotted above referred land and total 121 plots for residential purpose and two plots for commercial purpose were earmarked. As per the provisions of law, 3 common plots of 2497.35 sq.mtrs. were earmarked. Provision of Development Plan Roads was also maintained in plots.
Since sister-in-law of petitioner Smt.Pushpaben was not in a position to look after day-to-day affair and not in a position to attend the Registrar office for executing sale deeds etc., one power of attorney dated 10.06.1996 was executed in favour of petitioner by Smt.Pushpaben. As per recital of power of attorney, the petitioner donee (agent) was entitled to execute sale deeds and/ or other documents in favour of third party on behalf of donor and also was empowered to receive the amount of consideration on behalf of donor. It is more than clear that power of attorney executed in favour of petitioner was not coupled with consideration. In view of power of attorney executed on 10.06.1996, petitioner has executed different sale deeds in favour of different persons with respect to above referred plots.
Recently, in year 2008, petitioner has executed registered sale deeds No.2367 to 2370 in favour of purchaser in capacity of power of attorney holder. Surprisingly, on 20.09.2008, under purported exercise of power, Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty and Valuation Department, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar issued show cause notice informing petitioner to show cause as to why payment of order of deficit stamp duites and penalty should not be passed with respect to power of attorney dated 10.06.1996. The show cause notice was duly replied by petitioner. However, ultimately vide order dated 07.07.2009, respondent No.1 passed order for payment of deficit stamp duties of Rs.27,18,955/- and Rs.3,00,000/- towards penalty, totaling Rs.30,18,955/- against petitioner.
Respondent No.1 - Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation has held that as per Article 45(f) read with Article 20 of Schedule - I of Bombay Stamp Act, power of attorney is required to be considered as conveyance deed and therefore stamp duty is payable as per Article 20 of Schedule I. Order dated 30.06.2009(07.07.2009) passed by respondent No.1 was challenged by petitioner by way of preferring appeal being Appeal No.28 of 2009 under Section 53(1) of Bombay Stamp Act before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has also not considered contention raised by petitioner and passed impugned order on 16.01.2010, whereby order dated 30.06.2009 (07.07.2009) is confirmed. According to petitioner, though in show cause notice there was no whisper that document is impounded and respondent No.1 has not informed petitioner that on what basis market value of Rs.1,94,21,600/- is fixed. Further contention of petitioner is that Appellate Authority also not clarified above referred situation and power of attorney executed in favour of petitioner is not coupled with consideration and therefore, provision of Article 45(f) of Bombay Stamp Act would not be attracted in facts of present case. According to petitioner, both authorities have not considered this aspects of matter.
In light of aforesaid factual background following legal contentions are raised by petitioner, which are quoted as under:-
The show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction and the same is against the settled legal preposition.
Section 39 (1)(b) of the Act refers to Collector's power to stamp instruments which are impounded, pre-requisite condition to exercise power under Section 39 of the Act being impounding of instrument by the Collector under Section 33 of the Act or the Collector receiving any instrument sent to him under Section 37(2) of the Act. In the present case, there is no indication in the notice as to how, if at all, this pre-requisite and sine qua non condition for exercising jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Act is complied with.
Therefore, the impugned notice and the orders are illegal.
Article 45(f) of I Schedule of the Act applies to power of attorney when given for consideration, however, in the present case, the power given to the petitioner was not for consideration and the consideration was never moved from the donee (agent) to the donor (principal). The provision contained in Article 45(f) of I Schedule of Stamp Act provides that "power of attorney when given for consideration and authorizing the attorney to sell immovable property", is liable to "the stamp duties as the conveyance for the amount of consideration". The principal statutes in this Article are driven from notion to irrevocable agency in law of contract where the authority granted by the principal to the agent is coupled with an interest held by the agent. The principal is embodied in Section 202 of the contract Act. For satisfying definition of Article 45 (f), one of the ingredients is that "there must be consideration for the grant of power, such consideration must necessarily move from agent to principal". Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when there is no payment of consideration by the petitioner to the donor of power of attorney for execution of power of attorney, obviously, Article 45(f) would not be applicable. Thus, on this ground the impugned order is bad in law.
Admittedly, the Authorities have not provided any detail as to on what basis the market price is determined by respondent No.1. The petitioner has produced copy of index showing details of transaction took place during the year 1996-1997 for the very land, which shows that the market value decided by the respondent-Authorities is on very higher side and the same is fixed arbitrarily.
In support of aforesaid contentions, learned advocate Mr.Chhaya relied upon decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hariom Agrawal Vs. Prakash Chand Malviya reported in 2007(8) SCC Page No.514 = AIR 2008 SC Page No.166. He also relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Seth Loon Karan Sethiya Vs. Ivan E. John reported in AIR 1969 SC Page No.73 = 1969(1) SCR Page No.122 and also relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Limited reported in AIR 1962 Page No.110 = 1962(1) SCR Page No.827. He also relied upon decision of full Bench of this Court in case of Chief Controller Revenue Authority Vs. Nutan Mills Limited, Ahmedabad reported in 1977 GLR Page No.409, where contention was that copy of document or instrument cannot called an 'instrument'. He also relied upon Para-20 (Page-419) of commentary of 'Stamp duty on power-of-attorney', which is quoted as under:-
20.1 Power-of-attorney liable to stamp duty as one executed for consideration Article 48(f) of Schedule I of Stamp Act provides that "power-of-attorney when given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell any immovable property" is liable to "the same duty as a conveyance for the amount of consideration". The principles set out in Article 48(f) are derived from the notion of irrevocable agency in the law of contracts where the authority granted by the principal to the agent is coupled with an interest held by the agent. The principle is embodied in Section 202 of the Indian Penal Contract Act, and in particular Illustration (a) therefore, which is in the following terms:
"A gives authority to B to sell A's land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death."
A document to be brought squarely under the definition in Article 48(f) of the Act, the following ingredients should have been satisfied:
(1) There must be grant of power to sell immovable property;
(2) There must be consideration for the grant of the power. Such consideration must necessarily move from the agent to the principal;
(3) In view of the method of valuation for stamp duty set down in the Article itself, namely, the stamp duty to be calculated as for a conveyance for the same amount of the consideration, it is clear that the consideration must be one which can be ascertained precisely in terms of money.
He also relied upon another decision of full Bench in case of Ramji Shamji Bhatt Vs. Collector Madhya Saurashtra Rajkot reported in 1962 GLR Page No.123. He also submitted that in identical matter being Special Civil Application No.9389 of 2010, this Court has issued notice to other side on 16.08.2010. He also relied upon one decision of this Court in group matters being Special Civil Application No.18319 of 2007 and other matters decided on 23.02.2010.
learned advocate Mr.Chhaya submitted that while exercising powers under Section 39, it firstly requires compliance of Section 33 or Section 37(2) of Bombay Stamp Act, which is not complied, therefore, authorities had no jurisdiction. He also submitted that in present case, power of attorney is of year 1996 and it was given by Smt.Pushpaben in favour of petitioner only for executing sale deed in favour of third party and recovering amount on her behalf. He submitted that other sale deed of around land produced on record for determination of valuation of property, which was ignored by respondent - Authorities and market value fixed by respondent cannot be said to be proper and contrary to Index produced on record for other around land. Except that learned advocate Mr.Chhaya has not raised any other contention before this Court. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.1 and in its Para-5 and 6 are relevant, therefore, quoted as under:-
5. I respectfully say that duty is leviable if the consideration is taken to sell any immovable property by way of an irrevocable power of attorney. It is further submitted in present case irrevocable power of attorney was executed by Smt.Pushpaben in favour of the petitioner whereby, Smt. Pushpaben has given the powers even to accept the consideration.
6. It is further submitted thereafter petitioner and Smt.Pushpaben has filed the false affidavits stating consideration and other registration is handled by Smt.Pushpaben.
Learned AGP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri appearing on behalf of respondent - State Authority submitted that duty is leviable, if consideration is taken for sale by irrevocable power of attorney and such power of attorney has been executed by Smt.Pushpaben in favour of petitioner, whereby, powers have been given to petitioner, even to accept consideration, which suggests that it is a clear case of irrevocable power of attorney and transferring land in favour of present petitioner by Smt.Pushpaben. She submitted that this power of attorney was irrevocable, because, entire transaction must have to be carried out by petitioner as if he is owner of the land and entire property is handed over to petitioner by Smt.Pushpaben. She submitted that in power of attorney produced on record (Page-30), where specific averments are made in Para-3 that present petitioner is entitled to accept consideration for executing sale deed in favour of third party on the basis of irrevocable power of attorney. Therefore, this aspect has been considered by respondent authorities and on that basis orders have been passed.
According to her submission, no error is committed, which requires interference of this Court. She submitted that before passing an order, passed by Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, two notices, one on 11.06.2008 and another on 16.07.2008 were served to petitioner for producing relevant documents including original document of power of attorney for impounding it under Article 45(f) read with Article 20 of Schedule - I of Bombay Stamp Act, because such power of attorney is amounting to sale deed, therefore, it requires to be impounded while considering market value Rs.1,94,21,600/-. By way of aforesaid two notices dated 11.06.2008 and 16.07.2008, original documents, power of attorney in question was demanded by respondent - Deputy Collector, while exercising power under Section 33 of Bombay Stamp Act, at the time of registering documents Nos.2367 of 2008 to 2370 of 2008. This demand of original documents was made by Deputy Collector, but, same was not produced on record, and therefore, further notice dated 08.08.2008 through R.P.A.D. was served to petitioner under Section 39(1)(b) calling to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.27,18,925/- with fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, further notices dated 29.08.2008, 06.09.2008 and 20.09.2008 were served to petitioner. On 29.09.2008, petitioner remained personally present and requested for time to produce further evidence, accordingly, matter was adjourned on 10.10.2008. Thereafter, following contentions were raised by petitioner before Deputy Collector. First contention raised by petitioner before Deputy Collector was that on the basis of power of attorney dated 10.06.1996, sale deed in respect to Plot Nos.2, 3, 24, 25, 26 and 50 of Servey No.29, relating to residence are produced on record and whatever consideration of sale deed has been received by Smt.Pushpaben. In support of that contention, affidavit of Smt.Pushpaben and Pravinbhai dated 29.08.2008 was also placed on record. Another contention was raised that amount of consideration was not received by petitioner and he has merely signed documents on behalf of Smt.Pushpaben, who is sister-in-law of petitioner and residing at Vadodara, therefore, this power of attorney was executed in favour of petitioner to sign/ execute documents and except that, petitioner is not having any right to receive consideration and it was made clear to Smt.Pushpaben by petitioner that this power of attorney will not be used for any other purposes.
It is necessary to note that on behalf of petitioner before Deputy Collector, no contention was raised by petitioner that original documents are not called for impounding it and power of attorney dated 10.06.1996 is not amounting to sale deed. These and other contentions are raised before this Court, but, they were not raised by petitioner before Deputy Collector.
Therefore, each contention is decided by Deputy Collector, after interpreting irrevocable power of attorney executed in favour of petitioner on 10.06.1996. Deputy Collector come to conclusion that power of attorney gives power to petitioner as if, he becomes owner of land. Therefore, Deputy Collector rejected contention and held that as petitioner had a power to receive consideration while executing sale deed to third party on the basis of irrevocable power of attorney as it transfers rights of ownership. Deputy Collector passed an order while exercising power under Section 33 of Bombay Stamp Act that documents which has been impounded requires deficit stamp duty of Rs.27,18,955/- with fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.30,18,955/- considering Article 45(f) and Article 20 of Schedule
- I of Bombay Stamp Act. It was also ordered that if it is not deposited within a period of 90 days, then, that amount will be leviable with 15% simple interest.
After aforesaid order passed by Deputy Collector, 25% amount has been deposited by petitioner on 20.08.2009. Thereafter, appeal was preferred under Section 53(1) of Bombay Stamp Act within time limit, which was registered as Appeal No.28 of 2009. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 05.10.2009 and on that day petitioner made a written submission before Appellate Authority. One contention being changed was that on what basis market value is fixed and further contention raised by petitioner was that looking to document, it is of the year 1996, therefore, on that basis market price require to be considered and these are the facts, which was not considered by Deputy Collector, because, irrevocable power of attorney cannot be considered as a sale deed. Petitioner - Pravinbhai Motibhai and Shanubhai Motibhai and Smt.Pushpaben, being wife of Shanubhai Motibhai are as shown in 'Pedhinama', which was produced on 30.09.2009. Certificate of Talati, Himmatnagar is also produced on 03.10.2009 on the basis of fact that joint Family is managed and maintained by both brothers.
Appellate Authority came to conclusion that notices were issued by Deputy Collector to petitioner for producing relevant record, but, no documents produced on record, which can justify market price as suggested by petitioner. Deputy Collector had issued notices on 11.06.2008 and on 16.07.2008 for calling petitioner to produce relevant record, even though, no documents were produced by petitioner, therefore, final notice was served on 08.08.2008. Thereafter, notices were given on 29.08.2008, 04.09.2008, 06.08.2009 and 20.09.2008 and on 29.09.2008, request was made to grant further time by petitioner to allow him to produce further evidence. Ultimately, matter was adjourned on 10.10.2008. On 29.09.2008, alongwith written submission, sale deeds in respect to Survey No.29, Plot Nos.2, 3, 24, 25, 26 and 50 were produced and affidavit of Smt.Pushpaben and petitioner was also produced. Therefore, Appellate Authority came to conclusion that though, in notice dated 08.08.2008, Deputy Collector has rightly fixed market price of land in question, prior to that no documents were produced before Deputy Collector. Therefore, Appellate Authority has came to conclusion that Deputy Collector is having a power of determine market price accordingly, after giving reasonable opportunity to petitioner, in case when, number of notices were served to petitioner and no documents were produced by petitioner. Appellate Authority came to conclusion that market price of land in question has been determined by Deputy Collector and he is having jurisdiction for that and stamp duty is leviable considering Article 20 of Schedule - I, explanation
- 1 of Bombay Stamp Act. Appellate Authority has confirmed order passed by Deputy Collector, while deciding appeal preferred by petitioner under Section 53(1) of Bombay Stamp Act.
I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya, I have also considered submissions made by learned AGP Ms.Jhaveri and I have also perused orders passed by both authorities and also perused affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent. Article 45(f) of Schedule - I is very clear, which is as under:-
Article 45(f) - When given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell any immovable property;
The same duty as is leviable on a conveyance under Article 20 for the amount of consideration or, as the case may be, market value of the immovable property whichever is greater.
The question of nature of power of attorney has been discussed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Her Highness Maharani Shatadevi Vs. Savjibhai H. Patel and another reported in 1998(2) GLH Page No.70, where Division Bench has referred Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume -I, at Page No.542 in Para 872, it is mentioned as under:-
Power of attorney. Where a power of attorney is expressed to be irrevocable and is given to secure a proprietary interest of the donee or the performance of an obligation owed to the donee, the power is irrevocable either by the donor without the cosent of the donee or by the death, incapacity, bankruptcy, winding up or dissolution of the donor, so long as the donee has the interest or the obligation remains undischarged. A power of attorney given to secure a proprietary interest may be given to the person entitled to the interest and persons deriving title under him to that interest, and those persons will be the duly constituted donees of the power for all the purposes of the power, without prejudice to any right to appoint substitutes given by the power".
Article 20(d) of Schedule - I relates to reconstruction or amalgamation of companies by an order of High Court under Section 394 of Companies Act, 1956. Explanation-I and II are quoted as under:-
Explanation
- I For the purpose of this Article, an agreement to sell an immovable property or an irrevocable power of attorney shall, in case of transfer of possession of such property before, at the time of, or after the execution of such agreement or power of attorney, be deemed to be a conveyance and the stamp duty thereon shall be chargeable accordingly:
Provided that the provisions of Section 32-A shall apply mutatis mutandis to such agreement or power of attorney as are applicable to a conveyance:
Provided further that where subsequently a conveyance is executed in persuance of such agrement of sale, or an irrevocable power of attorney, the stamp duty, if any, already paid and recovered on the agreement of sale or an irrevocable power of attorney which is deemed to be conveyance, shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the conveyance.
Explanation
- II For the purpose of this Article, the expression "premises" means any land or building or part of a building including any flat, apartment, tenement, shop or warehouse therein and includes:-
(i) gardens, grounds and out houses, if any, pertaining to such building or part of a building, and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.
In view of aforesaid Explanation - I and II, it is clear that in agreement to sale immovable property or irrevocable power of attorney shall, in case of transfer of possession of such property before, or at the time of, or after execution of such agreement or power of attorney, be deemed to be conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall chargeable accordingly. Section 32(A) is applicable to such agreement or power of attorney as are applicable to a conveyance and further it has been provided that the expression "premises" means any land or building or part of a building including any flat, apartment, tenement, shop or warehouse therein and includes gardens, grounds and out houses, if any, pertaining to such building or part of a building, and any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.
Decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya of full Bench of this Court in case of Ramji Shamji Bhatt Vs. Collector Madhya Saurastra Rajkot reported in 1962 GLR Page No.123 is not applicable, because, it has been held that where power of attorney is given for consideration and authorises attorney to sell any immovable property. In that event stamp duty is same as is leviable on a conveyance under clause (a) of Article 25 for amount of consideration. In facts of that case, power of attorney has not been given for any consideration, but, looking to facts of this case, on Page-30, a clear statement is made in power of attorney made by Smt.Pushpaben in favour of present petitioner that petitioner is also entitled to execute sale deed or agreement to sale for consideration, therefore, Full Bench decision is not applicable to present case.
Learne advocate Mr.Chhaya also relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Chief Controller Revenue Authority Vs. Nutan Mills Limited, Ahmedabad reported in 1977 GLR Page No.409, where it has been held that copy of original instrument is document which by itself creates right or liability, duty or penalty cannot be recovered, if copy cannot be said to be instrument within meaning of Section 39 and Collector cannot impound copy of such instrument. In respect to aforesaid decision which is relied by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya, relevant provisions are Section 33 and Section 33(A), which are quoted as under:-
33.
Examination and impounding of instruments:
(1) 1[Subject to the provisions of section 32-A, every person] having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions shall if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law for the time being in force in the State when such instrument was executed or first executed:
Provided that
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (v of 1898).
(b) in the case of a judge of High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court may appoint in this behalf.
(3)For the purpose of this section, in case of doubt,
(a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and
(b) the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public officers.
33A. Impounding of instruments after registration.
When through mistake or otherwise any instrument which is not duly stamped is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer may call for the original instrument from the party and, after giving the party an opportunity of being heard and recording the reasons in writing and furnishing a copy thereof to the party, impounding it. On failure to produce such original instrument by the party, a true copy of such instrument taken out from the registration record shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be original of such instrument.
In view of aforesaid two provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, in case when demand made by Deputy Collector to produce original instrument from the party and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, even though, original instrument are not produced by party and furnishing copy thereof. On failure to produce such original instrument by party, a true copy of such instrument for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be original of such instrument. Therefore, in view of Section 33(A) when original instrument is not produced by petitioner inspite of giving opportunity and calling and issuing notices dated 11.06.2008 and 16.07.2008, then, Deputy Collector is entitled to impound copy of such instrument. Therefore, decision of Full Bench of this Court is not applicable to this case. The other decisions which are relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya are not applicable to facts of present case, therefore, after considering each decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya, are not helpful to him.
In view of aforesaid observations made by this Court, considering submissions made by learned advocates, reasoning given by both authorities and looking to document - power of attorney (Page
- 28 to 31, Annexure "B") itself suggests that irrevocable power of attorney is executed in favour of petitioner in respect to land in question, giving complete power to sell property and also to accept consideration of such sale deed. In such power of attorney, there is no specific provision that whatever consideration is to be accepted by petitioner is accepted on behalf of Smt. Pushpaben. In short, irrevocable power of attorney dated 10.06.1996 amounts to sale deed, which was executed by Smt. Pushpaben in favour of petitioner.
Facts have been rightly appreciated while determining market price of entire land, for that, Deputy Collector is competent to exercise such powers and inspite of calling petitioner to produce documents on 11.06.2008 and on 16.07.2008, original instrument was not produed. Failure to that, Section 33(A) is applicable and on that basis Deputy Collector is competent to impound copy of instrument. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Chhaya is not accepted. View taken by both authorities is correct and legal and no interference of this Court is necessary while exercising power under Article 226/ 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[H.K.RATHOD, J.] ..mitesh..
1These words, figures and letter were substituted for the words "Every person", by Guj.21 of 1982, S.15.
Top