Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the orders dated 24-7-2014 and 1-9-2014, passed by respondent No. 2-Chief Controlling Authority, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 11/12-2-2014, passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation (respondent No. 3), has not been accepted on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11/12-2-2014 passed by respondent No. 3, and the consequential notice dated 8/13-8-2014.

2. The brief facts of the case, to the extent they are relevant, are that the petitioner purchased property bearing Shop Nos. 305 to 309 and 312 to 314 in a building known as "Shanti Market", constructed on land bearing Sub-Plot No. 2 of Final Plot No. 139 of Town Planning Scheme No. 8 (Umarwada), in an auction conducted by Dena Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act" for short). The petitioner paid the sale consideration of Rs. 62.75 lacs to Dena Bank and a Sale Certificate was issued in its favour. Pursuant thereto, Dena Bank executed a Deed of Conveyance in favour of the petitioner, registered vide Serial No. 19532, on 18-8-2008. After a period of three years, in the year 2011, the petitioner was served with notices dated 3-8-2011 and 13-10-2011, to which he replied vide communication dated 2-11-2011. Not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 11/12-2-2014, which was received by the petitioner on 13-2-2014, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay the differential stamp duty of Rs. 3,08,450/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 on 12-5-2014, under Sec. 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short). By the impugned order dated 24-7-2014, respondent No. 2 refused to accept the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner again wrote to respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 8-8-2014, submitting that the appeal filed by him was within the prescribed period of limitation of ninety days as per Sec. 53(1) of the Act. In the said communication, the petitioner has also given the calculation for the period of limitation. By the impugned communication dated 1-9-2014, respondent No. 2 reiterated his earlier stand that the appeal of the petitioner was beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Aggrieved by the orders dated 24-7-2014 and 1-9-2014, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Mr. Amit V. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, as per the provisions of Sec. 53(1) of the Act, the maximum period of limitation to file an appeal is ninety days from the date of the order of the Collector (respondent No. 3). The order of respondent No. 3, against which an appeal was to be filed before respondent No. 2 is dated 11/12-2-2014. The appeal has been filed on 12-5-2014. If a calculation is made from 12-2-2014, which is one of the dates in the impugned order, the appeal has been presented within a period of eighty-nine days, and is, therefore, within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that even if the period of limitation is calculated from 11-2-2014, it comes to ninety days. The appeal has been filed on the 90th day and not thereafter. Looking at it from any angle, the appeal of the petitioner is within the period of limitation prescribed in Sec. 53(1) of the Act. The action of respondent No. 2, in not accepting the appeal on the ground of limitation