The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.07.2004 and the notices dated 02.03.2010 as well as 15.03.2010 passed / issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Rajkot. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration and direction to the respondents not to recover the amount as demanded by the respondents vide their order and/or notices under challenge.
Heard Mr. Anand B. Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Manisha Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 on an advance copy being served to the Government Pleader's office.
The only grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the order dated 21.07.2004 was never received by the petitioner and the petitioner on receipt of the notices dated 02.03.2010 and 15.03.2010, came to know about passing of such order dated 21.07.2004 and thereafter the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order by his application dated 23.04.2010. After obtaining the certified copy, the present petition is filed before this Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner cannot file an appeal against the impugned order before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as the appeal will be dismissed only on the ground of limitation.
Manisha Narsinghani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the order was duly served on the petitioner immediately after the said order was passed and even while giving certified copy of the order, it was made clear by the authority that the order was served on the petitioner earlier.
After having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and after having gone through the submissions, the Court is of the view that this disputed question cannot be gone into by the Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is right in his submissions, he has to file appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority along with delay condonation application raising the contention that the copy of the order was received by the petitioner only after application for certified copy was given to the petitioner and if the limitation period is considered from the date of receipt of certified copy, the appeal would be considered as filed within the period of limitation. In that case, the Appellate Authority would examine this aspect considering the petitioner's contention with regard to limitation and pass appropriate order. In any case, before filing the appeal, the petitioner has to make the deposit of 25% of the deficit stamp duty and thereafter, all legal as well as factual contentions would be considered by the Appellate Authority.
In the above view of the matter, the Court is not entertaining this petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority raising all contentions with regard to limitation and if such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Subject to the above, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
[K. A. PUJ, J.] Savariya Top