( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 28th February, 2005/10th March, 2005 issued by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty valuation), Patan as well as against the order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by the Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan, which are at Annexure "a" and "e" respectively to the memo of the petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that the order dated 28th February, 2005/10th March, 2005 passed by Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty valuation), Patan, (which is at Annexure "a" to the memo of petition) is an ex-pane 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), Patan before passing, the impugned order at Annexure "a", and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure "a" deserves to be quashed set aside. The Valuation of the land is de hors 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 "a", Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), patan 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. 1800/- per sq. metre. The petitioner has purchased the land in question, in pursuance of the permission given by the Charity Commissioner, State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad from Shri ranchhodji Mandir Trust, Patan, a Public Charitable Trust bearing registration no. A/696/mehasana. Thus, the market price of the land in question was approved by the Charity Commissioner. The measurement of the land in question were also fixed by the Charity Commissioner. The petitioner is a public body and was in possession of the land in question since last more than 40 years. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by Deputy Collector, (Stamp duty Valuation), Patan, while passing the impugned order at Annexure "a" to the memo of the petition. The Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), patan has also relied upon some letter dated 30th August, 2001, the copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner. In fact, the order dated 28th February, 2005/10th March, 2005 at Annexure "a" passed under Sec. 32a of the Act, 1985, is absolutely a non-speaking order. A copy of this order was also not supplied to the petitioner, and therefore, at a much belated stage, the petitioner came to know that the order has been passed, and therefore, there was some delay in preferring the Appeal. This fact has also not been appreciated by the deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan, and therefore, the order dated 5th December, 2005 at Annexure "e" deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has also referred certain Government resolutions, which are annexed with the memo of the petition and pointed out that these resolutions have not been appreciated by the respondent-authority. In fact, the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Duty Valuation), Patan 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 Bomaby 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), Patan at Annexure "a", which is an ex-pane order and violative of provisions of the Act, 1958 read with the Rules, 1984 deserve to be quashed and set aside. Valuation), Patan, (which is at Annexure "a" to the