Sudhadevi Ramakant Loiya And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 453 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.S. Mohite, J.

1. Heard Shri Naik, Advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Jog, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the show-cause notices dated 5-3-2001 and 29-5-2001 as also the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 26-12-2001, which are annexed to the petition. The show-cause notices have been issued in Form No. 1 prescribed by Rule 3(1) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1981, which corresponds to Form No. 1 as prescribed by Rule 6(1) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995.

4. As far as show-cause notices are concerned, the argument is that the reasons as required to be given in the Schedule of Form No. 1 have not been given. The said argument is unfounded as the reasons are required to be given in the schedule when the market value, as disclosed in the deed, is improper or untrue. It is in such circumstances that the concerned officer is required to give his reasons.

5. In the present case, the Joint District Registrar (Stamp and Valuation) has issued the show-cause notices on the footing that the concerned document is a partition deed. Insofar as the order dated 26-12-2001 is concerned, I find that the said order has valued the document at Rs. 16,61,250/-. After effecting such valuation, seven persons whom this order is issued have been again informed to remain present and to produce documents. Needless to say that the valuation done prior to the production of concerned documents in this manner is not proper.

6. Further my attention is drawn to the fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madurai Mills Company Limited, delivered in Civil Application No. 1394 of 1970 and decided on 9-3-1973, was shown to the concerned officer. The said judgment has been brushed aside in a very casual manner without assigning any reasons.

7. In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 26-12-2001 and remand the matter back to the Joint District Registrar, (Stamp and Valuation), Bhandara, for a fresh reasoned decision.

8. The Advocate for the petitioners states that he will produce all the documents, on which he relies upon, on or before 6-5-2002. Respondent No. 2 will give a fresh hearing to the concerned parties after receipt of all the documents and re-decide the matter after giving proper reasons and in particular dealing with the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove.

9. In the result, Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, however, there shall be no order as to costs.