Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Shankarbhai M Patel on 11 December, 2018

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav

        C/LPA/1509/2018                                   ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1509 of 2018

           In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 313 of 2010

                                  With
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
                                  With
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
==========================================================
             CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY
                            Versus
                     SHANKARBHAI M PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NISHA THAKORE, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 11/12/2018

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2018 This application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 211 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal for which grounds are stated in paragraphs no. 3 to 7 of the application and we find that sufficient cause is shown to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, delay of 211 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Application is allowed accordingly.

ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2018

1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No.313 of 2010, by raising various grounds, including initiation of proceedings after a period of 14 years and not within the period of 6 years, as envisaged under provisions of Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ought not have been weighed with the learned Single Judge, in view of powers conferred under Sections 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, no specific time limit is prescribed.

2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied on the above grounds and submitted that order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the reasons, findings and conclusions drawn by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, Section 32A(4) is reproduced hereunder:

"5.1 Subsection (4) of Section 32A of the Act is relevant, which reads as under.

Section 32A (1) & & & & (2) & & & & (3) & & & & (4) The Collector of the District may, suo motu or on receipt of information from any source, within [six years] from the date of registration of any Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/1509/2018 ORDER instrument referred to in subsection (1) [not being the instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under Section 32 or the instrument in respect of which the proper duty has been determined by him under subsection (3) or an instrument executed before the date of the commencement of the Bombay Stamp (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982] (Guj.21 of 183) call for examine the instrument fro the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the consideration or of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such examination and the duty payable thereon; and if on such examination, he has reason to believe that the consideration does not approximate to the market value of such property or, as the case may be, market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he shall proceed as provided in subsections (2) and (3)."

4. Since the facts recorded by the learned single Judge are not in dispute, we find that interpretation of Section 32A mandates the authorities to exercise powers within a period of 6 years from the date of registration of the instrument and in the present case the powers are not exercised within stipulated period of 6 years, the authority cannot act thereafter and can be said to have lost the jurisdiction to act upon. Learned Single Judge has further referred to various decisions of this Court on the subject matter and finally concluded that orders impugned passed by the authorities deserved to be quashed and set aside.

5. We are in total agreement with the above reasonings of learned Single Judge in the impugned order and it cannot be said that independent of Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, the authority has any other power either under Section 33 or Section 39 of the Act or both whereby irrespective of Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/1509/2018 ORDER time limit such powers can be exercised.

6. In view of the above and in absence of any merit, this appeal stands dismissed.

7. Consequently, no order on Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 4 of 4