D.N.PATEL
NANDADEVI DINESHKUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY – Respondent
( 2 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 22nd December,2005 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 so called ?jantri?, upon which the reliance has been placed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad has never been supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, the document i. e. Conveyance deed was registered on 3rd August,1994 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Odhav vide registration No. 1279, whereas the so called Notice is alleged to have been given in the year 2004. Thus, it is beyond the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.