State Of Gujarat vs Dilipsinh Manharsinh Kamalia
2021 Latest Caselaw 3236 Guj

          C/LPA/294/2021                                    ORDER



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 294 of 2021
                               In
         R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20414 of 2015
===========================================================
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                             Versus
                DILIPSINH MANHARSINH KAMALIA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK AGP (1) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
          NATH
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
                       Date : 24/02/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

Heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State appellants.

2. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order imposing deficiency in the stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 on the finding that the proceedings were initiated after an extraordinary delay of at least 9 years and further the order was passed after about 15 years from the time when the original sale deed was presented for registration, duly registered and returned to the purchaser in the year 2000. Every power vested in the authority is to be exercised within a reasonable period is a well settled proposition of law, however where some fraud or misrepresentation or forgery is apparent, such delay may be considered in every set of facts independently and there can be no hard and fast rule fixing the reasonable period for taking action or exercising such power. In the present case, there is no such foundation that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the purchaser. Merely

C/LPA/294/2021 ORDER

because a different or higher value of the property would be assessed, cannot be a ground to initiate the proceedings after such long delay.

3. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon two judgments (i) Shailesh Jadavji Varia vs. Sub­Registrar, Vadodara and ors. reported in 1996(3) GLR 783 and

(ii) State of Punjab and ors. vs. Mahajan Sabha, Gurdaspur and ors. reported in (1996) 1 SCC 538 in support of her submission that as no limitation is prescribed, the action could be taken at any point of time. We have perused the judgments and we find that on facts, both the judgments are not applicable in the present case and are of no benefit to the State.

4. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

cmk