M/S Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Raipur Thr. Its Chief Shri Pratik Saraogi And Another v. State Of Maharashtra, Dept. Of Revenue, Mumbai Thr. Its Principal Secretary And Others
2112wp6759.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6759/2016 M/s. Gold Bricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Raipur - 492 071 through its Chief Shri Pratik Saraogi and another ...Versus...
State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 through its Principal Secretary and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 21.12.2016 Though the petitioners had, by this petition, sought a declaration that the respondents cannot charge the stamp duty for the execution and registration of agreement for sale at a rate, that is, higher than the rate charged on the other properties in the near vicinity, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the grievance of the petitioners would stand redressed at this stage, if the respondent no.3 decides the application/appeal filed by the petitioners for challenging the order of fixation of higher rate for the properties of the petitioners, within a time frame. Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 states, on instructions from the respondent no.2, who is present in the Court
2112wp6759.16.odt today, that the petitioners may be asked to remain present for hearing within one month by fixing a date and the appeal of the petitioners would be decided within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners are heard.
By accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that would be binding on the respondent no.2, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to remain present through its authorized person before the respondent no.3 on 04.01.2017. As per the statement made on behalf of the respondents, the respondent no.3 should decide the application/appeal of the petitioners within six weeks from the date on which the petitioners are actually heard. Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar