( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the appellate authority i. e. Chief Controlling Revenue authority dated 03. 05. 2004 in appeal No,975 of 2001 in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation; vadodara dated 26. 07. 2001, by which the dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, vadodara, in exercise of the powers under cection 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (the Act for short) has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1, 11,434/- being the deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- by may of penalty determining the market value of the property in question at Rs. 10,90,900/ -.

( 2 ) THE property in question came to be purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 29. 11. 2000 which was presented before the Sub-Registrar, vadodara on 29. 11. 2000 itself which was registered as document registration No. 7691. It appears that Sub-Registrar, vadodara was of the opinion that the property is under valued and the proper stamp duty is not paid, he referred the document to the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty vadodara for determining the correct market value under Section 32-A of the Act. Notice under Rule 4 of The Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) rules, 1984 (the Rules for short) came to be issued on 22. 02. 2001, by which, the dy. Collector has fixed the provisional market value at Rs. 15,27,300/- and directed the petitioner to produce the necessary evidence on 14. 03. 2001. It appears that the. petitioner has filed reply to the said notice and submitted that the market value which is fixed by the petitioner on the basis of which the stamp duty is paid is considering the situation and property in question and therefore, requested to withdraw the notice. The Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, vadodara, by order dated 26. 07. 2001 passed the order determining the market value of the property in question at Rs. 10,90,900/-, thereby directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. l,11,434/- by way of deficit stamp duty and Rs. 250/- by way of penalty.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Dy. Collector, stamp Duty Valuation, Vadodara dated 26. 07. 2001, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Chief Controlling authority, State of Gujarat under Section 32-B of the Act being appeal No. 975 of 2001. The appellate authority, by its judgment and order dated 03. 05. 2004 dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, vadodara dated 26. 07. 2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) MR. PRASHANT G Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Dy. Collector dated 26. 07. 2001 is as such based upon the notice issued under rule. 4 of the Rules which itself was illegal and contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules. He submitted that as such under Rule 4 of the rules, the authority is required to submit and inform the petitioner the basis upon which the provisional market value is fixed and the Dy. Collector has in fact called upon the petitioner to produce necessary evidence with regard to the market value. He, further submitted that, in fact, it is the duty and it was incumbent on the part of the dy. Collector to supply the basis on which the provisional market value is fixed and inspite of that, he has shifted the onus upon the petitioner to produce necessary evidence. He submitted that apart from that in the impugned order dated 26. 07. 2001 no particulars and/or basis are mentioned, on the basis of which respondent No. 2 has determined the market value of the property in question at Rs. l0,90,900/ -. He submitted that in fa