Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 232 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Amolak Singh

2009-01-25

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
Judgment Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The State has challenged the order dated 24.4.2002, whereby the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer (`the Board' for short) has dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Dharam Chand, the respondent No.2, sold half of his share in agricultural land in Khasra No.726, measuring 0.65 hectare, to Amolak Singh, respondent No.1, for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. The sale deed was submitted before the Sub-Registrar, Alwar on 2.2.2001. Since the land was adjoining a road, the Sub-Registrar was of the opinion that the property had been under-valued. According to him the value of the property was Rs.4,22,500/-. Hence, he issued a notice under Section 47A of Rajasthan Stamps Act. The case was subsequently referred to Collector (Stamps) Alwar. After hearing Amolak Singh, vide order dated 31.3.2001, the Collector held that Amolak Singh is liable to pay Rs.3,600/- to the State. Since the State was aggrieved by the said order, it filed a revision petition before the Board. However, vide order dated 24.4.2002, the Board dismissed the revision petition filed by the State. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anant Bhandari, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, has contended that the Collector has not applied the DLC rate while assessing the value of the land. Therefore, the order of Collector deserves to be set aside. Moreover, the Rule 59-B of Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, defines the power of the Collector. In the present case the Collector has over-stepped his authority as prescribed by Rule 59-B of the Rules,1955. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Yadav, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that DLC rates are not binding upon the Collector while assessing the value of land. Secondly, in the case of Satyam Properties vs. the State of Rajasthan (2002(1) DNJ (Raj.) 386 = RLW 2002 RJ 332) this Court has already struck down Rule 59-B of the Rules, 1955. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the material available on record. 6. In catena of case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the DLC rates are not binding on the Collector. They not to be used as ready reckoner. They are merely guidelines to be used by the Collector for assessing the value of the land. 6. In catena of case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the DLC rates are not binding on the Collector. They not to be used as ready reckoner. They are merely guidelines to be used by the Collector for assessing the value of the land. Thus, in case the Collector has not followed the DLC rates, no illegality or perversity has been committed by him. Moreover, since Rule 59-B has already been struck down as unconstitutional by this Court in the case of Satyam Properties (supra), the contention regarding Rule 59-B are meritless. 7. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.