Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Premjibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1165 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAVJIBHAI PREMJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned AGP for the respondents waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking following reliefs:
"(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate order direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 11.12.2025, issued under section 53(A) of the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking show cause as to why the deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- may not be levied on the petitioners pursuant to the sale deed bearing Registration No.17685 dated 24.08.2017 being arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction since issued after lapse of more than six years of the date of certificate issued under section 41 dated 13.10.2017;
(b) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2 and further direct the respondent No.2 not to proceed further with regard to the proceedings initiated under Section 53(A) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 before the respondent No.2 authority itself and pass any order in relation to the impugned notice;
(c) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioners entered into a registered Memorandum of Understanding with the erstwhile owners of the subject land for its purchase, subject to conversion of the land from new and restricted tenure to old tenure and for non-agricultural use. That, the Collector, Surat, exercising powers under Section 43 read with Rule 25 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, granted permission for conversion of the subject land from new tenure to old tenure and for non-agricultural residential use, upon payment of premium of Rs.12,36,68,800/- which was duly paid by the erstwhile owners. That, pursuant to the conversion of tenure, the erstwhile owners executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioners, registered as Sale Deed No.17685 dated 24.08.2017, for a total consideration of Rs.14,46,68,800/- and stamp duty of Rs.68,88,771/- was paid by the petitioners at the time of registration. That, at the time of registration, the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined stamp duty authority impounded the sale deed, and the respondent directed the petitioner to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs.2,00,001/- vide certificate/order dated 13.10.2017 under section 41 of the Act, 1958. That, the petitioners paid the additional deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,00,001/- as directed by the Deputy Collector and the certificate under Section 41 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, came to be issued, and the document was released. That, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice under Section 53(A) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, bearing Serial No. EJR/Legal/F.N.202/2024/19203-06, demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- in respect of the sale deed registered on 07.11.2017.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned notice dated 11.12.2025 issued by Chief Controlling Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Heard Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned senior counsel with Mr. Rutul Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Mr. Shelat, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned notice is arbitrary and without jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. He has submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 53-A, the respondent authority is not empowered to issue any notice beyond a period of six years from the date of certificate issued by Collector under section 32, 32A, 39 or 41, whereas in the present case as per the contents of the notice itself, the certificate under section 41 came to be issued on 13.10.2017 Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined and the period of six years has expired on 13.10.2023, whereas the notice is issued on 11.12.2025, therefore it clearly reflects that the same is issued after the period of 6 years and hence, the said notice is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that once the appropriate stamp duty has been evaluated by the Deputy Collector for which the order was passed and which has been complied with, then the authority cannot initiate suo moto proceedings and issue a notice for the deficit stamp duty. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Shelat has urged that the impugned notice passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar is required to be quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
7. As against that, Ms. Sarda, learned AGP for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners presented the sale deed before the Sub Registrar which was then sent before the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Part-1, Surat for ascertaining the market value of the sale deed and had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,001/- which was paid by the petitioner and the sale deed came to be registered. She has submitted that the Deputy Collector, Surat issued notices upon para of A.G.Audit to the petitioner dated 03.10.2018, 16.05.2019, 23.09.2019, 09.12.2019 and 19.04.2024 and from the above notices it transpires that that the Deputy Collector had initiated proceedings within limitation period and the petitioner had also participated in said proceedings. She has submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that High Courts should not interfere with proceedings at the show cause notice stage under Article Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined 226 of the Constitution of India, as such a notice does not infringe any legal right and merely calls upon the noticee to respond. She has submitted that the impugned notice issued by the respondent authority is in consonance with the settled principles of law and is issued after following due procedure and therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the impugned notice passed by the respondent authority. It appears from the record that the petitioner has already paid the additional stamp duty of Rs.2,00,001/- on 19.10.2017 as directed by the Deputy Collector vide certificate/order dated 13.10.2017 and the receipt of the payment was also issued by the respondent authority (page 72, 72A). However, the impugned notice was issued by the respondent no.2 after almost eight years demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- in respect of the sale deed registered on 07.11.2017.
8.1 The issue involved in the present petition is to determine whether the respondent no.2 is empowered to initiate the suo moto proceedings under section 53-A of the Act. At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1435 more particularly para 12 which reads as under:
"12. The appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered in Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined Special Civil Application No. 18319/2007 dated 23/2/2010 as well as reported judgment in the case of Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 2006 [2] GLH 775. Both the judgments are though of the Ld. Single Judge, specifically confirmed that the respondents have no authority either to impound the document or to reopen the valuation only upon the report of the auditor, under section 39 and that burden of proof to determine the market value is upon the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority and they have to justify fixation of higher market value. Therefore, in the present case, once certificate under section 31 was issued by the respondents, they should not be allowed to reopen their own valuation after four years to say that valuation of the property is higher, relying only upon the Auditor's report. Whereas the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V N Devadoss V/s. Chief Revenue Control Officer reported in 2009 AUEL, SC 43655 [Civil Appeal No. 3411/2009 decided on 8/5/2009) specifically confirmed and held that when any property has been purchased as per open offer, question of undervaluation does not arise. In the given case, when property was purchased under the directions of BIFR and AAIFR, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the market value is price of the property which can be fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of instrument and, therefore, stamp duty is payable on such sale price when the Stamping Authority had issued a notice to the purchaser in that case, to pay the stamp duty as per market value."
8.2 It is also fruitful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Gujarat Borosil Limited reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1257 more particularly para 6 which reads as under:
"6. Since the notice dated 30.07.1999 has been issued beyond the maximum prescribed period of six years from the date of certificate dated 18.03.1993 certifying the full payment of the stamp duty leviable issued by appellant No.2 herein, no further action of taking the matter under revision can be taken by the appellant No. 1 herein as the period for taking action has become time barred. As stated above, there is no other Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1165/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026 undefined provision by which the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 53(A) or under Section 53(1) of the Act can be enhanced."
9. Considering the materials placed on record and the facts of this case and in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Gujarat and Anr.(supra) and Gujarat Borosil Limited (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned notice issued by respondent no.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
10. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed. The impugned notice issued by respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 13 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 22:57:41 IST 2026