Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Krishnavadan Rasiklal Desai on 30 November, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs Krishnavadan Rasiklal Desai on 30 November, 2018

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav

         C/LPA/1456/2018                                     ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1456 of 2018
                                 In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 312 of 2010
                                With
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018

              CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY
                             Versus
                   KRISHNAVADAN RASIKLAL DESAI
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN DAVE AGP 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 : 30/11/2018

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) 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.312 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.

Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/1456/2018 ORDER

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 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 sub section (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 Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/1456/2018 ORDER 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 Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/1456/2018 ORDER Act, the authority has any other power either under Section 33 or Section 39 of the Act or both whereby irrespective of 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) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 4 of 4

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court