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) 326

D.N.PATEL
NANDADEVI DINESHKUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.L.PANDYA, NEHAL R.JOSHI

( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 22nd December,2005 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad (Annexure ?c? to the memo of the petition) as well as against the order dated 14th February,2005 passed by respondent no. 2 - Collector of Stamps, (Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition ).

( 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





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