JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Constitutional Validity of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short “the Rules of 2004”). A further challenge is made to the order dated 02.08.2005. A prayer is also made to restrain the respondents to prosecute the petitioner in pursuance to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short “the Act of 1998”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 is in conflict with Section 51 of the Act of 1998. As and when any instrument is submitted for registration and registering officer has reason to doubt about valuation of the land, it can be determined by the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. It provides for registration of the document on the value disclosed therein. If the Registering Officer has reasons to believe that the market value of the property is not truly disclosed then it can send the document in original, prior or subsequent to registration, to the Collector for taking action. The procedure has been given under sub-Section (3) and (5) of Section 51 of the Act of 1998. As per the aforesaid provision, determination of market value of the property can be made by the Collector. As against the aforesaid, Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 gives authority to the Registering Officer to determine the value of the property on the rate determined by District Level Committee (DLC). The provision aforesaid was legislated in ignorance of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 thus, deserves to be struck down. 3. It is further submitted that a similar issue came up before this court for consideration though it was in reference to Central Legislation similar to what has been challenged herein. The similar provision was struck down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Satyam Properties Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) RLR 722 . However, on an appeal before the Apex Court by the State of Rajasthan, the theory of reading down was applied for taking harmonious interpretation of the two provisions. The similar provision was struck down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Satyam Properties Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) RLR 722 . However, on an appeal before the Apex Court by the State of Rajasthan, the theory of reading down was applied for taking harmonious interpretation of the two provisions. It was with the observation that it would not be necessary for the Registering Officer to apply DLC rate rather, in an appropriate case, he can disagree with the market rate determined by the District Level Committee and refer the matter to the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short “the Act of 1899”). The prayer is accordingly made to apply the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Satyam Properties decided on 29.07.2010 in Civil Appeal No.3671-3684/2003. 4. It is also stated that apart from the assessment of instrument on DLC rate in consonance to Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 under challenge, the Collector made valuation of the property in ignorance of its nature. The property was taken as commercial though, at the time of submission of the instrument for registration, it was residential in nature. The application for conversion of land from residential to commercial was made subsequent to purchase of the property. The subsequent event could not have been taken for determination of market value of the property. In fact, the market value should have been determined by the Collector taking into consideration the nature of property at the time of submission of instrument. The prayer is made to remand the case back to the Collector to decide the entire issue afresh, that too, after applying the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Rajendra Prasad submits that if the matter is remanded without holding Rule 58 to be ultra virus, there would be no objection. It is moreso when the petitioner has raised an issue even in reference to the nature of the property. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Rajendra Prasad submits that if the matter is remanded without holding Rule 58 to be ultra virus, there would be no objection. It is moreso when the petitioner has raised an issue even in reference to the nature of the property. The prayer is, however, to allow the Collector to proceed in the matter in accordance to Section 51 of the Act of 1998 with a clarity that if property is found to be under valued than to market rate, consequence to follow as per sub-Section(3) of Section 51 of the Act of 1998. It is submitted that Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 is otherwise not de hors to Section 51 of the Act of 1998, rather, for determination of market value, reference of the rate determined by the DLC has been given. It is to avoid ailment of discrimination in the hands of the Registering Officer. In any case, the Collector would determine the issue afresh after taking harmonious construction of the provisions. 6. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 7. The validity of Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 has been challenged mainly on the ground that it is in conflict to Section 51 of the Act of 1998. Section 51 of the Act of 1998 and Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 are quoted hereunder for ready reference :- “Rule 58. 7. The validity of Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 has been challenged mainly on the ground that it is in conflict to Section 51 of the Act of 1998. Section 51 of the Act of 1998 and Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 are quoted hereunder for ready reference :- “Rule 58. Procedure for assessment of the market value of the immovable property by the Registering Officer.-- 5 [(1) In the case of an instrument relating to immovable property, the market value of such property shall be assessed as under namely :- (a) in case of agriculture, residential and commercial categories of land, on the basis of the rates recommended by the District Level Committee constituted under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 : Provided that Inspector General of Stamps may revise the rates of agriculture, residential or commercial land determined by District Level Committee with prior approval of the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette, if circumstances so require; (b) in case of other categories of land, on the basis of the rates determined by Inspector General of Stamps with approval of State Government or determined by State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette; (c) in case of constructed portion, on the basis of the rates determined by State Government; (d) in case of proportionate land under the multistoried buildings on the basis of criteria specified by the State Government; (e) while assessing market value, depreciation on the constructed portion shall be allowed according to the criteria specified by the State Government; and (f) in case of corner plots on the basis of criteria specified by the State Government."] "(2) Inspector General of Stamps with approval of State Government shall prepare guidelines for District Level Committee from time to time, in respect of determination of market value of the agriculture, residential and commercial categories of land. The District Level Committee while recommending the rates of agriculture, residential and commercial categories of land, shall follow the guidelines issued by Inspector General of Stamps: Provided that if the rates recommended by the District Level Committee are increased by more than fifty percent of the existing rates, the increased rates so recommended shall be taken into consideration only after the approval of the Inspector General of Stamps." Provided further that if the District Level Committee recommends to decrease the existing rates, the decreased rates so recommended shall be taken into consideration only after the approval of the State Government." (3) If the District Level Committee does not revise the rates of agriculture, residential or commercial categories of land up to 31st March of any year, the market value of such categories of land in that district, shall be assessed by increasing 10% in the existing rates from next 1st April. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), (2) and (3) above, the State Government may re-determine the rates recommended by District Level Committee or determined by Inspector General of Stamps, if the circumstances so require. The rates so determined shall be the basis of assessment of the market value of the land with effect from the date specified in such order and be valid until the District Level Committee revises the rates so determined. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, the State Government, if the circumstances so require, may by order suspend the revision of the rates of agriculture, residential or commercial categories of land for particular year or years." “Section 51. Instrument undervalued, how to be valued-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No. 16 of 1908) and the rules made there under as in force in Rajasthan where, in the case of any instrument relating to an immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument, the registering officer has, while registering the instrument, reasons to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may either before or after registering the instrument, send it in original to the Collector for taking action under sub-section (3). (2) When through mistake or otherwise any instrument which is undervalued and not duly stamped is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer may call for the original instrument from the party and, after giving the party liable to pay stamp duty an opportunity of being heard and recording the reasons in writing and furnishing a copy thereof to the party, impound it and on failure to produce such original instrument by the party, a true copy of such instrument taken out from the registration record shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the original of such instrument and send it to the Collector for taking action under sub-section (3). (3) On receipt of the instrument under sub-section (1) or (2), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner, determine the market value and stamp duty including the penalty at the rate of two percent of the amount of the deficient duty per month or part thereof for the period during which the instrument remained unstamped or insufficiently stamped or twenty five percent of the deficient stamp duty whichever is higher but not exceeding two time of the deficient stamp duty and surcharge, if any, payable thereon and if the amount of stamp duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, so determined exceeds the amount of stamp duty, including penalty and surcharge, if already paid, the deficient amount shall be payable by the person liable to pay the stamp duty including penalty and surcharge, if any. (4) Where it appears to a person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or a person incharge of a public office, during the course of inspection or otherwise, except an officer of a police, that an instrument is undervalued such person shall forthwith make a reference to the Collector in that matter. (4) Where it appears to a person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or a person incharge of a public office, during the course of inspection or otherwise, except an officer of a police, that an instrument is undervalued such person shall forthwith make a reference to the Collector in that matter. (5) The Collector may, suo-moto or on a reference mad under sub-section (4) call for any examine any instrument not referred to him under sub-section (1) or (2), from any person referred to in sub-section (4) or the executants or any other person for the purpose of satisfying himself as to correctness of the market value of the property, and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine in accordance with the procedure provided in sub-section (3) the market value and the amount of stamp duty, if any, payable thereon together with a penalty at the rate of two percent of the amount of the deficient duty per month or part thereof for the period during which the instrument remained unstamped or insufficiently stamped or twenty five percent of the deficient stamp duty, whichever is higher, but not exceeding two times of the deficient stamp duty, which shall be payable by the person liable to pay the stamp duty and penalty. (6) Where for any reason the original document called for by the Collector under sub-section (5) is not produced or cannot be produced, the Collector may, after recording the reasons for its not production, call for a certified copy of the entries of the document from the registering officer concerned and exercise the power conferred on him under sub-section (5). (7) For the purpose of inquiries under this section, the Collector shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses. Including the parties to the instrument or any of them, and to compel the production of documents by the same means, and so far as may be in the same manner, as is provided in the case of civil court under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).” 8. Section 51 of the Act of 1998 provides that if an instrument is under valued then how to be valued. The procedure has been given therein. Section 51 of the Act of 1998 provides that if an instrument is under valued then how to be valued. The procedure has been given therein. As and when an instrument is presented for registration, it should be registered on the rates disclosed in the instrument. If the Registering Officer has reasons to believe that market value of the immovable property has not been truly disclosed in the instrument, he will either before or subsequent to registration of the document, send it to the Collector. Sub-Section 3 of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 provides the procedure. The value is to be determined after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 gives power to the Registering Officer for valuation of property on DLC rate as against the provisions of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 giving power to the Collector. In any case, both the Officers, either the Registering Officer or the Collector need to determine the market value and for Registering Officer, it should be at the rate determined by the District Level Committee. Rule 58 refers to the rate determined by the District Level Committee whereas, Section 51 of the Act of 1998 talks about the market value to be taken into consideration by the Collector. The provision for taking the rate determined by the District Level Committee is to avoid discrimination, as stated by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG. Almost in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of Satyam Properties (supra), applied doctrine of reading down of the provisions to take it in harmony, thereby, the Collector (Stamps) was given liberty to determine the market value. 9. In view of the above, we are inclined to apply the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satyam Properties (supra). Accordingly, without declaring Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 to be ultra virus, direction is given to apply two provisions harmoniously. If the market value of the property is required to be determined in the opinion of the Registering Officer, it would be by applying the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. In doing so, the consequence of penalty can follow, as given under sub-Section 3 of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 but it would be after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. In doing so, the consequence of penalty can follow, as given under sub-Section 3 of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 but it would be after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. 10. The impugned order passed by the Collector is set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order after an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In doing so, the Collector would further look into the nature of the property at the time of submission of the instrument for registration. It would not be in reference to the subsequent conversion after the sale. It goes without saying that determination of market value of the property would be in reference to the nature of property at the time of submission of instrument by applying the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. 11. Both the writ petition are disposed of with the aforesaid. 12. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.