HIREN DHAMENDRA TALIAversusCHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, STATE OF GUJARAT, GANDHINAGAR

     C/SCA/6131/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6131 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

==========================================================
                     HIREN DHAMENDRA TALIA
                             Versus
     CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, STATE OF GUJARAT,
                       GANDHINAGAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVDIP BRAHMBHATT(3490) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. UTSAV H KHAMAR(14493) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 29/04/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP
for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of
the respondents.


2.      With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective
parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.


3.      Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14,
19 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions


                                 Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/6131/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026




of Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking following reliefs:


        “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
        mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
        appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 1-Chief Revenue
        Controlling Authority to hear the main matter on merits by
        quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
        20.01.2026 passed by learned Chief Revenue Controlling
        Authority,     Gujarat      State,    Gandhinagar      passed
        Stamp/appeal/53(1)/Surat- 2/04/2026/591;


        (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
        mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
        appropriate writ or order directing the respondent authority to
        refund the excess stamp duty plus penalty deposited by the
        petitioner as per the Order of the respondent no. 2-Deputy
        Collector by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders
        dtd.: 20.01.2026 and order dtd.: 16.07.2025;


        (B) Such other and further relief, as, are deemed fit, in the facts
        and circumstances of this ease may kindly be granted.”



4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner entered into Sale Deed with respect to non agricultural
land bearing City survey No. NA241/1 admeasuring 10622.40 sq.
mtrs., having Sheet no.- NA99 situated in Mouje- Vanz, Taluka
Choryasi, District-Surat, Sub-district Surat- 6 (Kumbhariya) with
Manuben Ishwarbhai Naginbhai and 15 others for consideration
of Rs. 1,93,00,000. That, the said Sale Deed came to be
presented on 19.09.2024 before the sub registrar office Surat- 6
(Kumbhariya) and registered on 25.03.2026 vide registration no.-
7331. That, during presentation, the concerned sub-registrar has
evaluated stamp duty considering the market value as Rs.



                                  Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/6131/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026




5,84,23200/- instead of stamp duty paid by the petitioner on
actual Consideration value i.e. of Rs. 1,93,00,000/- and evaluated
deficit stamp duty of Rs. 19,17,037/- Thereafter, the Sale deed in
question was referred to the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty
Valuation Department-2, Surat, by concerned sub- registrar
officer, wherein impugned order dated 16.07.2025 was passed
and deficit stamp duty of Rs. 38,25,528/- was evaluated together
with penalty of Rs. 1,000/- imposed considering market value of
Rs. 9,73,72,000/-. Thereafter, the present petitioner approached
Respondent-1 Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Gandhinagar
challenging the impugned order passed by Respondent 2, by
preferring Appeal under Section 53(1) along with an application
for condonation of delay which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 20.01.2026 on the ground of maintainability, since the
appeal was preferred after 185 days from the impugned order of
respondent no.2.


5.      Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 16.07.2025
and 20.01.2026 passed by respondent authorities, the petitioner
has preferred this petition.


6.      Heard Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the
respondents. Perused the materials available on record.


7.      I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I
have also considered the impugned orders passed by the


                               Page 3 of 5
      C/SCA/6131/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026




respondent authorities. In the present case, the petitioner has
preferred an appeal before respondent no.1 challenging the
impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by Respondent 2
along with an application for condonation of delay which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2026 on the ground of
maintainability, since the appeal was preferred after 185 days
from the impugned order of respondent no.2. Thus, there is a
gross delay in preferring the appeal before the respondent no.1
appellate authority.


7.1      At this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar vs.
Joint       Director    Sericulture    Department     and       another
reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has discussed with regard to the existence of the industrial
dispute for a long period and such a long period without any
explanation cannot be considered by the Court. In the present
case, Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel has not given sufficient
explanation with regard to inordinate delay of 185 days. In the
said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the fact
that even otherside has taken defence with regard to the delay
in approaching the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought to have
considered the aspect of delay though the delay was not
properly explained under the provisions the Limitation Act is not
applicable. Even this Court has decided the petition being
Special Civil Application No.3643 of 2019 and dismissed the
same where the delay of six years has been caused in preferring
the award and/or petition. Considering the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar (supra) and


                                Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/6131/2026                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026




   the order of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application
   No.3643 of 2019, no case is made out to entertain the present
   petition.


   8.       In view of the above, the present petition being meritless
   deserves to be dismissed and hence, it is dismissed. Rule is
   discharged.

                                                                 (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 04/05/2026 17:36:05




                                                  Page 5 of 5