RAVJIBHAI PREMJIBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/1165/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1165 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No

==========================================================
                       RAVJIBHAI PREMJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
                                    Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                Date : 02/04/2026

                                  JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Ms.Nirali Sarda, learned AGP for
the respondents waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is
taken up for final hearing today.


2.      Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14
and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking following reliefs:

        “(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
        mandamus and/or any other appropriate order direction in the
        nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned
        notice dated 11.12.2025, issued under section 53(A) of the


                                    Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/1165/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




        Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking show cause as to why the
        deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- may not be levied on the
        petitioners pursuant to the sale deed bearing Registration
        No.17685 dated 24.08.2017 being arbitrary illegal and without
        jurisdiction since issued after lapse of more than six years of
        the date of certificate issued under section 41 dated
        13.10.2017;

        (b)   Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the
        present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
        implementation, execution and operation of the impugned
        notice issued by the respondent No.2 and further direct the
        respondent No.2 not to proceed further with regard to the
        proceedings initiated under Section 53(A) of the Gujarat Stamp
        Act, 1958 before the respondent No.2 authority itself and pass
        any order in relation to the impugned notice;

        (c)   Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit
        and proper in the interest of justice.”


3.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioners        entered   into    a     registered   Memorandum               of
Understanding with the erstwhile owners of the subject land for
its purchase, subject to conversion of the land from new and
restricted tenure to old tenure and for non-agricultural use. That,
the Collector, Surat, exercising powers under Section 43 read
with Rule 25 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948, granted permission for conversion of the subject land from
new tenure to old tenure and for non-agricultural residential use,
upon payment of premium of Rs.12,36,68,800/- which was duly
paid by the erstwhile owners. That, pursuant to the conversion of
tenure, the erstwhile owners executed a registered Sale Deed in
favour of the petitioners, registered as Sale Deed No.17685
dated 24.08.2017, for a total consideration of Rs.14,46,68,800/-
and stamp duty of Rs.68,88,771/- was paid by the petitioners at
the time of registration. That, at the time of registration, the

                                    Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/1165/2026                        JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




stamp duty authority impounded the sale deed, and the
respondent directed the petitioner to pay the additional stamp
duty of Rs.2,00,001/- vide certificate/order dated 13.10.2017
under section 41 of the Act, 1958. That, the petitioners paid the
additional deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,00,001/- as directed by the
Deputy Collector and the certificate under Section 41 of the
Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, came to be issued, and the document
was released. That, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned
notice under Section 53(A) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958,
bearing Serial No. EJR/Legal/F.N.202/2024/19203-06, demanding
deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- in respect of the sale deed
registered on 07.11.2017.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned notice
dated 11.12.2025 issued by Chief Controlling Revenue Officer,
Gandhinagar, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.


5.      Heard Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned senior counsel with Mr.
Rutul Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nirali
Sarda, learned counsel for the respondents.


6.      Mr. Shelat, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the impugned notice is arbitrary and without
jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. He has
submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 53-A, the
respondent authority is not empowered to issue any notice
beyond a period of six years from the date of certificate issued
by Collector under section 32, 32A, 39 or 41, whereas in the
present case as per the contents of the notice itself, the
certificate under section 41 came to be issued on 13.10.2017

                              Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/1165/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




and the period of six years has expired on 13.10.2023, whereas
the notice is issued on 11.12.2025, therefore it clearly reflects
that the same is issued after the period of 6 years and hence,
the said notice is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and
arbitrary, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
He has submitted that once the appropriate stamp duty has been
evaluated by the Deputy Collector for which the order was
passed and which has been complied with, then the authority
cannot initiate suo moto proceedings and issue a notice for the
deficit stamp duty. Over and above the grounds agitated in the
memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Shelat has urged that the
impugned notice passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue
Officer, Gandhinagar is required to be quashed and set aside and
the present petition is required to be allowed.


7.      As     against   that,   Ms.   Sarda,    learned     AGP     for    the
respondents has submitted that the petitioners presented the
sale deed before the Sub Registrar which was then sent before
the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organization, Part-1,
Surat for ascertaining the market value of the sale deed and had
directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,001/- which was paid by
the petitioner and the sale deed came to be registered. She has
submitted that the Deputy Collector, Surat issued notices upon
para of A.G.Audit to the petitioner dated 03.10.2018, 16.05.2019,
23.09.2019, 09.12.2019 and 19.04.2024 and from the above
notices it transpires that that the Deputy Collector had initiated
proceedings within limitation period and the petitioner had also
participated in said proceedings. She has submitted that it is a
well settled principle of law that High Courts should not interfere
with proceedings at the show cause notice stage under Article

                                   Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/1165/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




226 of the Constitution of India, as such a notice does not
infringe any legal right and merely calls upon the noticee to
respond. She has submitted that the impugned notice issued by
the respondent authority is in consonance with the settled
principles of law and is issued after following due procedure and
therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed.


8.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned notice passed by the
respondent authority. It appears from the record that the
petitioner has already paid the additional stamp duty of
Rs.2,00,001/- on 19.10.2017 as directed by the Deputy Collector
vide certificate/order dated 13.10.2017 and the receipt of the
payment was also issued by the respondent authority (page 72,
72A). However, the impugned notice was issued by the
respondent no.2 after almost eight years demanding deficit
stamp duty of Rs.74,41,769/- in respect of the sale deed
registered on 07.11.2017.


8.1      The issue involved in the present petition is to determine
whether the respondent no.2 is empowered to initiate the suo
moto proceedings under section 53-A of the Act. At this juncture
it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in
the case of Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2013 (2) GLR
1435 more particularly para 12 which reads as under:



         “12. The appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered in


                                Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/1165/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




         Special Civil Application No. 18319/2007 dated 23/2/2010 as
         well as reported judgment in the case of Nandadevi
         Dineshkumar Sharma V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
         reported in 2006 [2] GLH 775. Both the judgments are though
         of the Ld. Single Judge, specifically confirmed that the
         respondents have no authority either to impound the document
         or to reopen the valuation only upon the report of the auditor,
         under section 39 and that burden of proof to determine the
         market value is upon the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority and
         they have to justify fixation of higher market value. Therefore,
         in the present case, once certificate under section 31 was
         issued by the respondents, they should not be allowed to
         reopen their own valuation after four years to say that valuation
         of the property is higher, relying only upon the Auditor's report.
         Whereas the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V
         N Devadoss V/s. Chief Revenue Control Officer reported in 2009
         AUEL, SC 43655 [Civil Appeal No. 3411/2009 decided on
         8/5/2009) specifically confirmed and held that when any
         property has been purchased as per open offer, question of
         undervaluation does not arise. In the given case, when property
         was purchased under the directions of BIFR and AAIFR, the
         Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the market value is price of
         the property which can be fetched if sold in open market on the
         date of execution of instrument and, therefore, stamp duty is
         payable on such sale price when the Stamping Authority had
         issued a notice to the purchaser in that case, to pay the stamp
         duty as per market value.”


8.2      It is also fruitful to refer to the decision of this Court in the
case of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Gujarat
Borosil Limited reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1257 more
particularly para 6 which reads as under:

         “6. Since the notice dated 30.07.1999 has been issued beyond
         the maximum prescribed period of six years from the date of
         certificate dated 18.03.1993 certifying the full payment of the
         stamp duty leviable issued by appellant No.2 herein, no further
         action of taking the matter under revision can be taken by the
         appellant No. 1 herein as the period for taking action has
         become time barred. As stated above, there is no other



                                   Page 6 of 7
      C/SCA/1165/2026                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026




          provision by which the statutory period of limitation prescribed
          under Section 53(A) or under Section 53(1) of the Act can be
          enhanced.”


9.        Considering the materials placed on record and the facts of
this case and in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court in
the cases of State of Gujarat and Anr.(supra) and Gujarat Borosil
Limited (supra), I am of the opinion that the impugned notice
issued by respondent no.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the petition deserves to be allowed.


10.       In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed. The
impugned notice issued by respondent no.2 is quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.



                                                              (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/04/2026 17:13:08




                                                Page 7 of 7