Deepak Madaan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8013 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 319/2020 Deepak Madaan S/o Ghanshyam Dass, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4, Vishal Nagar, Industrial Area, Hisar, Haryana

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Collector Stamps, Hanumangarh Vrit Camp, Sri Ganganagar

3. Sub-Registrar, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 404/2020 Deepak Madaan S/o Ghanshyamdass, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4, Vishal Nagar, Industrial Area, Hisar, Haryana, Through Its Authorised Signatory Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Chhailu Ram.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretariat, Finance Department, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Collector Stamps, Hanumangarhvirti Camp, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Sub-Registrar, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2020 Deepak Madaan S/o Ghanshyamdass, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4 Vishal Nagar Industrial Area, Hisar, Haryana. Through Its Authorised Signatory Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Chhailu Ram.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Of Finance Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Collector Stamps, Hanumangarh Virt Camp, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Sub-Registrar, Sri Ganganagar.

(2 of 6)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puneet Agarwal Mr. Dixit Panwar for Mr. Akshat Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

23/03/2021

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common,

therefore, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.319/2020 has been heard as a lead case and

all these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

The prayer in the lead case is as follows :-

"i) To issue any writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2019 (Annex.17) passed by the Deputy Inspector General:

ii) To issue writ, order or direction to declare the inspection carried out by the Deputy Inspector General on 06.02.2019 as illegal and contrary to law, and to quash the inspection report pursuant to the said Inspection (Annexure-11);

iii) To issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari to declare the Notice dated 23.04.2019 under Section 54 issued by the Sub- Registrar as illegal and contrary to law (Annexure-12).

iv) To issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari to declare the reference

(3 of 6)

darted 17.05.2019 made by the Sub-Registrar as illegal and contrary to law (Annexure-13).

v) To issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari to declare the Notice dated NIL under Section 51(5) r/w rule 65(2) issued by the Deputy Inspector General as illegal and contrary to law (Annexure-14).

vi) To issue any writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery notice No.782 dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-

18);

vii) To issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the impugned proceedings;

viii) To issue such other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from

the record, particularly Annex.7 that the property in question, as

per the sale-deed, was owned by Gwar Construction Limited

through authorized person, which is of-course the present

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

Company is a legal entity independently holding its own rights and

duties, and therefore, no individual whatsoever can be saddled

with any kind of proceedings or liabilities without proper

instructions from the Company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this court

to the Annex.17, which is the impugned order dated 09.10.2019,

in which, the parties are the previous owners and the present

(4 of 6)

petitioner, and admittedly the Company is not a party in the

proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this

court towards the Rule 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp

Rules, 2004, in which, the notice to the person liable to pay the

duty is mandatory.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to

Section 51 Sub-section 5 where the determination of market value

by the Collector holding a quasi-judicial authority and the

determination of the same in accordance with the procedure is

reflected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to

the definition of Section 2 Sub-section (xxiii), in which, the market

value has been defined as a price which such property would have

fetched or would fetch if sold in open market on the date of the

execution of the property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since

the mandatory provisions of law have been violated by the

respondents, as they have not given any opportunity of hearing to

the Company and arrived at a conclusion, the same is vitiated in

the eyes of law.

Learned Additional Advocate General however, has drawn

attention of this Court towards the reply filed by the Company

before the Collector Stamp in the respective case number, which

was the proceedings under Section 51 Sub-section 5 of the

Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 readwith Rule 65(2) of the Rajasthan

Stamp Rules, 2004. Learned AAG further submits that a detailed

reply was filed by the Company through its authorized

representative Hari Chand Girdhar, which has been kept into

(5 of 6)

consideration by the learned authority, while passing the

impugned order dated 09.10.2019.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that if

there is any grievances arising out of the impugned order then

there is an alternative remedy provided under Section 65(1) of the

Act of 1998 and that could have been availed. Learned AAG

further submits that since the Company is not before this court

and the individual petitioner is there before this Court, therefore,

at best the Court may absolve him of his liability arising out of the

order dated 09.10.2019 but since the Company has stepped into

shoes of the petitioner while filing a reply, therefore, the Company

may not be absolved.

Learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the

recovery notice has to be against the Company and could not have

been given to the present petitioner, who was for the particular

proceedings not an authorized representative of the Company in

question and was neither the Company itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder

submission, submitted that the petitioner is an individual and he

does not have any instruction at this stage on behalf of the

Company and thus, would not like to submit anything on the

merits on behalf of the Company, though he submitted that the

proceedings were vitiated from the root because the initial notice

itself created a jurisdictional error in contravention of the rules

and thus, the whole proceedings ought to be discontinued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in

reply which was submitted by the Company has stated that the

proceedings are illegal. It is also contended that there is no

acquiescence on the part of the Company.

(6 of 6)

This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at

length and perusing the record of the case as well as the statutes

shown, is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner is

only an individual before this Court and admittedly as per the

sale-deed, he has no ownership of the property in question,

therefore, any proceedings against him by the respondents cannot

be sustained. Learned Additional Advocate General has been fair

enough to admit that the petitioner is an individual and recovery

notice cannot be given to him rather the same has to be given to

the Company.

Thus, while allowing these writ petitions, this Court directs

the respondents to take all necessary steps provided in law to

carry on the recovery of the stamp duty strictly in accordance with

law against the Company and not the present petitioner. Since the

Company is not represented before this court today, therefore,

this Court gives liberty to the Company to take all legal recourse

available to them against the proceedings of imposition of stamp

duty as well as the recovery. This order shall not prejudice the

rights of the Company to assail the impugned order dated

09.10.2019 or any other proceedings thereafter. Any payment

made in lieu of the demand by the petitioner shall be reduced

from the original liability.

Stay petition as well as all pending applications stand

disposed of accordingly.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

38-40-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)