SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Guj) 328

D.N.PATEL
VINAYBHAI P. PATEL, CHAIRMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: BHARAT R.PANDYA, K.L.PANDYA

D. N. PATEL, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 21st June, 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty valuation, Ahmedabad (Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition) under the provision of section 32 (A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. (hereianfter referred to as "the Act, 1958" ).

( 2 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 21st June,2004 passed by Deputy Collector, stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad is patently dehors the provisions of the bombay Stamp (Determination of Market value of property) Rules,1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1984" ). No opportunity of hearing has ever been given to the petitioner and ex-parte order has been passed as well as the order is a non-speaking order. The document i. e. Conveyance deed was registered on 19th september, 1994 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad vide registration no. 2339, whereas the so called Notice is alleged to have been given beyond the period of 7 years and, therefore, as per section 32a (4) of The Bombay Stamp act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1958"), the respondent has no power, jurisdiction and authority to issue such type of Notice



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top