Gujarat High Court
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Dashrathbhai Ramanlal Patel on 18 April, 2019
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/905/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 905 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 311 of 2010
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 905 of 2019
==========================================================
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY & 1 other(s)
Versus
DASHRATHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 18/04/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. The State is in appeal challenging the oral judgment dated 04.08.2017 passed by learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge, the original petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.11.2009, passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissing the appeal preferred under Section 53(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
2. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact that the Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/905/2019 ORDER petitioner had purchased one-third undivided share in Bungalow No.46/B by a registered Sale Deed on 12.05.1995. Thereafter, a Deed of Correction was executed on 07.07.1995.
The Deputy Collector issued show cause notice on 12.02.2009 and 05.03.2009, asking the respondent - original petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.79,980/-. This order was under challenge by way of an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority which came to be dismissed on 12.11.2009. Aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner came before this Court.
3. Sole contention that was raised in the petition and which was accepted by learned Single Judge was that the authorities have exercised powers after fourteen years. It is not in dispute that Sale Deed was registered in the year 1995, and it was only in 2009 that the authorities sought to invoke their jurisdiction asking for the deficit stamp fees.
4. Learned Single Judge, in Paragraph-5.1 of the judgment, quoted Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, which reads as under:
Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/905/2019 ORDER
"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 instrument referred to in sub-section (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 sub-sections (2) and (3)."
5. Having perused the judgment of learned Single Judge and looking at the provisions of Section 32A of the Act, it is the Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/905/2019 ORDER authorities who could have exercised powers within a period of six years from the date of registration of an instrument. However, in the facts of the case, it is apparent that it was so done after about fourteen years in 2009. Not only that, on original Sale Deed, the stamp duty was already paid and the demand was raised for the Deed of Correction belatedly after fourteen years.
6. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application for interim relief, in view of dismissal of appeal, also stands disposed of.
(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) sunil Page 4 of 4