VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4574 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Harsheel D. Shukla for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani for the respondents.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant – original petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.871 admeasuring 217.76 sq. meters situated in the city of Rajkot. It is stated that a Sale Deed came to be executed on 17.07.1999 in respect of the said land. Thereafter, for the very same property, on 25.10.1999, Release Deed was executed by the family members of the petitioner relinquishing their shares in the said property in favour of the petitioner. The dispute in the petition was with regard to the Deed of Relinquishment executed on 25.10.1999, which came to be registered at Serial No.3577 with the office of the Sub-Registrar.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Shukla for the appellant – original petitioner thereafter submits that the competent authority exercised the powers under Section 32A of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and passed an order on 03.10.2015, by which it was held that the correct market value of the property in question was Rs.17,68,377/and as per ScheduleI of Article 20 of the Act, stamp duty of Rs.1,76,840/was required to be paid. However, the stamp duty of Rs.9,000/was paid and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,67,840/and a penalty of Rs.250/. The said amount is to be recovered from the petitioner.

3.2 Learned advocate, thereafter, contended that the aforesaid order came to be passed by the respondent authority exparte i.e. without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and surprisingly, after a period of 90 days i.e. on the 91st day, notice dated 02.01.2016 was issued at the correct address of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, inquired and came to know that the respondent authorities issued various notices, during the course of the proceedings initiated under Section 32A(1) of the Act, at the address where the petitioner was not residing. Thus, with malafide intention, the respondent authorities issued various notices at the old address of the petitioner and, thereafter, notice for recovery was issued at the new address and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities and recovery notice issued in pursuance thereto were required to be quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge has committed an error while dismissing the petition and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the respondent authorities be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and pointed out that the Relinquishment Deed executed on 25.10.1999, which was registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar at Serial No.3577. The respondent authority exercised the powers under Section 32A of the Act and issued notice to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the Relinquishment Deed/Release Deed. It is pointed out that in Form No.1, the address was not mentioned by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued various notices at the address mentioned in the instrument. As the notices were not served at the address, the respondent authorities have followed the procedure prescribed under the Gujarat Stamp (Determination of Market Value) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short). It is pointed out that the notices were issued on 14.02.2002, 13.03.2006, 21.09.2011, 16.02.2012 and 28.02.2013. The said notices sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due were returned unserved. Thereafter, the n