( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 1st January, 2004 issued by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty valuation), Ahmedabad as well as against the attachment notice dated 17th February,2006 passed by the Deputy Mamlatdar and Ex-Officio recovery Officer (Stamp Duty registration), Ahmedabad, which are at annexure "c" and "b" respectively to the memo of the petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the order dated 1st January,2004 passed by Deputy collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad, (which is at Annexure "c" to the memo of petition) is an ex-parte order, whereby excessively exorbitant market value of the land in question has been fixed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner by Deputy collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad before passing the impugned order at Annexure "c", and, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure "c" deserves to be quashed and set aside. The valuation of the land is dehors the provisions of The bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1958") and the bombay Stamp (Determination of Market value of Property) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1984 ).

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that while passing the impugned order at Annexure "c", the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad has relied upon certain documents, which were never supplied to the petitioner. Respondent authority has relied upon -"jantri", which reflects the market price of the land in question. As per "jantri", the respondent authority has fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 30,96,200. In fact, the order dated 1" january, 2004 at Annexure "c" to the memo of the petition is absolutely a non-speaking order. A copy of this order was not supplied to the petitioner. This fact has also not been appreciated by the Deputy Collector, (Stamp duty Valuation), Ahmedabad and, therefore, the notice dated 17th February, 2006 at annexure "b" deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has also referred certain government Resolutions and pointed out that these resolutions have not been appreciated by the respondent authority. In fact, the deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad has not followed the procedure for determining the market value of the land in question as per Rule 4 read with Rule 8 of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of market Value of Property) Rules,1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,1984)and, therefore, the order passed by Deputy collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad at Annexure "c", which is an ex-parte order and violative of provisions of the Act,1958 read with the Rules,1984 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

( 5 ) LEARNED Assistant Government pleader Mr. KL. Pandya for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), ahmedabad is true, correct and in consonance with the facts of the present case. The market value of the land in question arrived at by the respondent authority is true and correct. The petitioner has not preferred an Appeal within stipulated time, and, therefore, the respondent authority has passed the notice dated 17" february,2006. The order dated 1st January, 2004 passed by Deputy Collector, (Stamp duty Valuation ). Ahmedabad (Annexure "c" to the memo of the petition) clearly reflects the fact that as per the "jantri", the market price of the land in question is fixed at rs. 30,96,200/- and the market value arrived at by the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty valuation), Ahmedabad under section 32a of the Act, 1958 is true and correct.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 1st January, 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty valuation), Ahmedabad (Anne