AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt
Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. In this group of petitions identical challenge is involved
and therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
As the entire controversy is in a narrow compass, the learned advocates agreed for final disposal of the entire group.
The petitioners have by way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought appropriate direction to the
respondents to apply Jantri rates which are prescribed by the State of Gujarat on 18.04.2011 to properties and its transfer under the jurisdiction of
Sardarnagar area.
Facts in brief leading to filing these petitions, as could be culled out from the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under;
The State of Gujarat has evolved a practice of providing and publishing Annual Statement Rates (ASR) which is for guidance of the concerned
authorities for assessing the correct rates of property transferred by the conveyance deed required to be stamped under the provision of Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958.
It is averred in the memo of petition that the State of Gujarat published and/or circulated the Annual Statement of Rates of various land and
locations for the entire State of Gujarat vide its Circular dated 01.04.2011. However, on account of objections received the said rates were
amended and amendment was circulated by way of communication dated 18.04.2011. Thus a formula is revolved, where, for example Rs.100/- is
assessed based upon the ASR of 01.04.2008 and in 2011 i.e. prescribed as Rs.200/-, then out of Rs.100/- increase 50% is to be given as
reprieve and thus Rs.150/- is to be taken as rates. Unfortunately, this 18.04.2011 recommendation of giving reprieve in the rates is refused to be
implemented so far as the present petitioners are concerned, as their property forming part of Sardarnagar area, which was for the reasons best
known to the State authorities not figuring in the Annual Statement of Rates published on 01.04.2008. The petitioners are contending that it is for
no fault on their part that they were not covered under the Annual Statement of Rates prescribed by circular dated 01.04.2008. However, in
practice, as could be seen from the communication dated 16.05.2008, the proposal was sent right on 30.04.2008 for the areas which were left out
in the Annual Statement of Rates of 2006 and therefore as such in 2008 where rates prescribed in 2006 only. This was pending and therefore the
implementing authority found it difficult to straightway apply the formula as envisaged under communication dated 18.04.2011, as there was no
basis available for assessing increase as the best Jantri rates so far as the present petitioners are concerned, were never there.
This Court is of the considered view that the Court need not go into the larger question of justifiability of the State prescribing any straight jacket
formula like Annual Statement of Rates for lands in question. Therefore, without holding that promulgation and/or prescription of Annual Statement
of Rates is legal or proper, this Court is embarking upon examining the challenge in the petition namely that despite there being reprieve given to all
the concerned in respect of the Annual Statement of Rates prescribed on 01.04.2011 and this made applicable to the present petitioners also and
when those rates are modified and/or relaxed by way of reprieve, then same reprieve cannot be denied to the present petitioners on account of
there exists no base. Therefore, in my view, in the interest of justice the following direction is required to be issued.
The proposal, as envisaged in communication dated 16.05.2008 which is produced at page no.20, be taken to be basis as even at that time also
this proposal was higher than the rates prescribed in 2006, as it is submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, in my view, it is not open to the State to
insist that the benefit of 18.04.2011 communication would not be available to the residents and persons like petitioners. The petitions are required
to be allowed and they are accordingly allowed to this extent only.
The State Government is at liberty to work out appropriate formula of assessment for making the respite of reprieve given to all others as per
Certificate dated 18/4/2011 to the present petitioners also, as there cannot be discrimination to the applicability of that respite envisaged under
Circular dated 18/4/2011 to an area of residence. With this observation, petitions are partly allowed. Rule made absolute in each petition to the
extent aforesaid in each petition. No costs.