JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. T.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah learned AGP for the respondent.

2. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Alkesh N. Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent state authority.

3. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned AGP, the petition is taken up for hearing and final decision today.

4. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief:

“6(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated: 01/05/2012 passed by Chief controlling revenue authority in Stamp/Appeal/28/2012/2358;”

5. At the time of hearing, the petitioner requested for permission to amend the petition so as to amend paragraph No.6 and add request for further. The request was granted and the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition. Accordingly, paragraph No.6(F) has been added, which reads thus:

“6(F) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay caused by present petitioner in preferring stamp/Appeal/28/2012/2358 before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority;”

6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2012 passed by the competent authority under Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby the competent authority has declined to entertain the petitioner’s application filed under Section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the first adjudicating authority on the ground that it was filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation.

7. It appears that the competent authority found that delay of about 42 days was caused in filing the application against the order of the first adjudicating authority.

8. The facts involved in and leading to present petition are that :

8.1 Somewhere in May 1999, the petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No. 255 of T.P. Scheme No.3, Final Plot No.88 of village Odhav, Taluka City and District Ahmedabad. The sale deed under which the petitioner purchased the said property was submitted for registration and the document was registered at Registration No.1414/1999.

8.2 The petitioner has claimed that value of the property was Rs.4,83,508/- and accordingly, stamp duty in the sum of Rs. 67,704/- was paid which, according to the petitioner, was adequate in view of the value of the property and applicable rate as per the Act.

8.3 It appears that after period of about 12 years, the authority took up the document for verification and scrutiny. On the basis of verification and scrutiny, the competent authority issued notice under Section 32-A of the Act dated 29.8.2011 conveying tentative view and preliminary decision that the market value of the land would be of about Rs. 83,64,000/- (and not Rs. 4,83,508/- as per the valuation made by the petitioner in the sale deed) and accordingly, the petitioner is obliged to pay deficient stamp duty to the tune of about Rs.5,59,846/-. The petitioner was asked to file reply-explanation.

8.4 Subsequently, in pursuance of the above mentioned notice dated 29.8.2011, the competent authority proceeded to determine the quantum of deficient stamp duty and passed order dated 23.12.2011 directing the petitioner to pay deficient stamp duty in the sum of Rs.5,59,596/- and Rs.250/- towards fine.

8.5 The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order and therefore preferred application under Section 53 of the Act.

8.6 The petitioner has claimed that though the said order is said to have been passed on 23.12.2011, it was never served to the petitioner, but only on inquiry about the pending proceedings, the petitioner came to know, in April 2012, that the order was already passed and therefore, he immediately filed application under Section 53 of the Act.

8.7 The competent authority, under Section 53 of the Act, took into consideration the date of order, i.e. 23.12.2