Rajasthan High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs Gov Of Raj And Ors on 2 February, 2024
Author: Shubha Mehta
Bench: Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3730/2015
Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta, R/o 282,
Guru Jambeshwar Nagar, Gali No.9, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Government of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
3. Sub Registrar, Jaipur-IV, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas with
Mr. Vaibhav Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with
Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment reserved on 29/01/2024
Judgment pronounced on 02/02/2024
1. This petition is filed aggrieved of demand created for stamp
duty to be paid on the plot purchased by petitioner.
2. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has sold
the property, the issue that survives is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to refund of enhanced stamp duty paid in
pursuance to the impugned order.
3. The brief facts are that Nokha Agro Services (for short
'seller') purchased Plot No.C-112 Lal Kothi Scheme, "C" Block,
Jaipur in auction held on 02.11.2011. On 22.01.2015 the
[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-3730/2015]
petitioner jointly with his wife purchased the plot from seller.
There was dispute with regard to valuation of the property. Notice
was issued by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur for payment of stamp duty
of Rs.6.37 lacs, valuing the property at 491.81 lacs. The petitioner
filed reply. The order dated 04.02.2015 was passed creating
demand of Rs.7,99,485/-. The Review petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for
short 'Act of 1998') was dismissed on 23.02.2015, hence the
present petition.
4. While issuing notice on 20.04.2015, following order was
passed:-
"Defect is overruled.
Issue notice. Shri Madhusudhan Shrimonai
Sharma accepts notice on behalf of Shri Rajendra
Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondents. He prays for time to file reply. Name of
Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General
be shown in the cause list.
List after four weeks.
In the meantime, petitioner may deposit the
demanded sum under protest, which would be liable to
be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 7% per
annum if eventually the writ petition succeeds. On
deposit of the aforesaid sum under protest, the
registered document may be handed over to the
petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary
objection that the petitioner has remedy of revision under Section
65 of Act of 1998.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seller had
purchased residential plot in the auction held by Jaipur
Development Authority. The petitioner was sanctioned home loan
[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-3730/2015]
by ICICI Bank Limited for purchase of plot. The land was never
got converted to commercial plot. Valuation of the land for stamp
duty is being done by treating it to be commercial property. He
further submits that consent of the petitioner that he is ready to
pay enhanced stamp duty was wrongly recorded in the order
creating demand. The contention is that the conditions of Circular
No.1/2009, relied upon by the respondent does not apply to
present case. It is argued that petitioner has sold the property and
the sale deed was registered treating the plot to be residential.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned
order and submits that purchase of the property by seller shall not
determine the present nature and valuation of the property. The
property is situated on 80 feet road surrounded by the commercial
activities. The assessment of valuation was done relying upon the
guidelines given in Circular No.1/2009 and on the basis of physical
inspection of the site. He relied upon the photographs annexed
with reply to substantiate that the area has developed as
commercial hub. To support the valuation reliance is placed upon
the contents of the representation made by the petitioner wherein,
it was stated that petitioner had paid four times price of
residential District Level Committee rates. The contention that
consent of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in the impugned
order is refuted by stating that no such issue was pressed in the
Review proceedings.
8. Before proceeding further, Section 65 of Act of 1998 is
reproduced below:-
"65. Revision by the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority.-
[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-3730/2015]
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the
[Inspector General of Stamp or Collector] under
Chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first
proviso to section 29 and under section 35 of the Act,
may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such
order:
[Provided that the Inspector General of Stamp or any
other officer authorised specially or generally be the
Inspector General of Stamp may, if aggrieved by any
order referred to in this subsection, may file revision
before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within 180
days from the date of the communication of the order.]
[Provided further that] no revision application shall be
entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory
proof of the payment of 4[Twenty five percent] of the
recoverable amount.
(2) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo
moto or on information received from the registering
officer or otherwise call for and examine the record of
any case decided in proceeding held by the 1[Inspector
General of Stamp or Collector] for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the
order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings
and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think
fit:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after
giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter."
9. The valuation of the property has to be determined by taking
into consideration various factors. The physical inspection of the
site was undertaken before passing order creating demand. There
is factual dispute as to whether the properties in the vicinity are
being used for commercial purposes which shall impact the
valuation of plot in question. Disputed questions of facts involved
regarding valuation of the property and the petitioner has a
[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-3730/2015]
remedy of revision under Section 65 of Act of 1998. No case is
made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is
relegated to alternate remedy.
10. As per Section 65, pre deposit of 25% of the recoverable
amount was to be made but the petitioner in pursuance to the
order of the Court dated 20.04.2015 has deposited the entire
amount under protest. It is clarified that in the eventuality of
succeeding in revision petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to
refund of the enhanced amount along with interest @ 7% per
annum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Simple Kumawat /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
