JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a charitable trust allegedly registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and is possessed of 63.01 Bighas of land. 3. The petitioner floated an idea of promoting a private university, therefore it, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Establishment of a Private University by Separate Act dated 26.07.2007 issued by the Education (Gr-4) Department, Government of Rajasthan moved to the State Government for the establishment of a private university. The aforesaid guidelines provide for a minimum of 30 acres of contiguous land with construction of minimum 10,000 sq mts. of covered space for administrative and other purposes. It also provides that the proposal should contain details of plans for campus development and other infrastructure facilities. 4. On the proposal so submitted by the petitioner as a sponsoring body, the State of Rajasthan passed a legislation known as the Sangam University Bhilwara Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act’) which received the assent of the Governor on 30th April 2012 for establishment and incorporation of a private University with the name “Sangam University”, Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan. 5. The said Act clearly mentions that the petitioner is a registered trust and has setup educational facilities as specified in Schedule-I of Act and has also deposited an amount of Rs. 2 crores for the endowment fund. 6. The Act vide Section 3(2) lays down that the movable and immovable property specified in Schedule-I of the Act shall vest in the university and the sponsoring body shall immediately after the commencement of the Act, take steps for such vesting. The properties mentioned in Schedule-I to the said Act are none else than those owned and possessed by the petitioner i.e., the land having an area of 63.01 Bighas (39.4 acres) and the building for academic and other purposes. 7. In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 that is, the above 63.01 Bighas of land vested in the university so established and the sponsoring body that is, the petitioner was required to take steps for such vesting. The petitioner accordingly in its meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 16.07.2012 passed a resolution to vest the aforesaid land and building of the trust in the university, so as to complete the process of vesting. The petitioner accordingly in its meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 16.07.2012 passed a resolution to vest the aforesaid land and building of the trust in the university, so as to complete the process of vesting. Thus, by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Act coupled with the aforesaid resolution, the aforesaid land came to be vested in the university by operation of law without there being any instrument of conveyance. 8. It may be pertinent to mention here that the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Stamp Act’) vide Section 3 provides for the instruments chargeable to stamp duty with the corresponding rate of duty as mentioned in the schedule. Article 21 of the schedule of the Stamp Act inter alia provides for the stamp duty on instrument of conveyance at the rate of 11% of the market value of the property. The duty so chargeable on any instrument is realizable from the persons mentioned in Section 32 of the Stamp Act which specifically provides that in case of any instrument chargeable to stamp duty under the Act other than those prescribed above, the stamp duty shall be payable by the person executing the instrument. 9. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of its power under Section 9 of the Stamp Act, which provides for the exemption, reduction and modification of the stamp duty on instruments, came out with a notification dated 09th March 2015, for reduction of stamp duty by 1% on the instruments of transfer of immovable property from one sponsoring body to a private university in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of the Private University and The Guidelines for the Establishment of the Private Universities by Separate Act. 10. On the strength of aforesaid notification, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 15.03.2017 directed the petitioner to execute documents for vesting of the land of the trust as mentioned in Schedule-I in terms of Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Act. 11. 10. On the strength of aforesaid notification, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 15.03.2017 directed the petitioner to execute documents for vesting of the land of the trust as mentioned in Schedule-I in terms of Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Act. 11. The petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court through the medium of this writ petition has challenged the aforesaid direction of the Joint Secretary, Higher Education dated 15.03.2017 as also the notification dated 09.03.2015 issued by the State Government under the Stamp Act for reducing the stamp duty on instruments of transfer of immovable property executed by the sponsoring body in favour of private university as it presupposes levy of stamp duty even where the transfer is by operation of law without any instrument. 12. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notification dated 09.03.2015 is ultra vires to the provisions of the Stamp Act inasmuch as the said Act nowhere provides for charging stamp duty where the transfer of immovable property takes place by operation of law. There is no instrument or deed of conveyance of immovable property which can be subjected to stamp duty and as such the notification reducing the stamp duty by treating the transfer of immovable property under the Stamp Act as a duty of conveyance provided under Article 21 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act is unwarranted. He further submits that the land in question stands vested in the university by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Act coupled with the resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 16.07.2012 and as such, no further steps are required to be taken to complete the vesting. Therefore, the direction of the Joint Secretary contained in the letter dated 15.03.2017 to execute documents for completion of the vesting in reference to the above notification dated 09.03.2015 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 13. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General in defense submitted that the notification dated 09.03.2015 reducing the rate of stamp duty on instruments of transfer of immovable property from the sponsoring body to the private university is in accordance with law and is not ultra vires to any provisions of the Stamp Act. 13. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General in defense submitted that the notification dated 09.03.2015 reducing the rate of stamp duty on instruments of transfer of immovable property from the sponsoring body to the private university is in accordance with law and is not ultra vires to any provisions of the Stamp Act. So far the respondents have not demanded any stamp duty from the petitioner and as such the writ petition is wholly premature and is not maintainable. The Section 3(2) of the Act clearly provides that the land mentioned in the Schedule of the Act shall vest in the university and that the sponsoring body shall take steps for such vesting and therefore it is incumbent for the petitioner to execute documents for the vesting of the said land. There is no error or illegality on part of the Joint Secretary in requiring the petitioner to execute documents to complete the vesting. 14. Undisputedly, the land in question belonged to the petitioner and under the Act as it is mentioned in Schedule-I it stands vested in the university by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Act. The relevant Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Act providing for the vesting is reproduced below:- “The movable and immovable property specified in the Schedule I shall be vested in the University and the Sponsoring Body shall, immediately after the commencement of this Act, take steps for such vesting.” 15. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that the land mentioned in Schedule-I to the Act, which obviously is the land in question shall be vested in the university and that the sponsoring body that is, the petitioner shall take steps for such vesting. The Act nowhere provides and specifies the steps to be taken for the vesting of the land. It does not mention that the petitioner has to take any specific kind of steps such as executing any document or an agreement to sell or a deed of conveyance. The petitioner has taken steps for its vesting by passing a resolution in its meeting held on 16.07.2012 which appears to be sufficient for completing the vesting. 16. It does not mention that the petitioner has to take any specific kind of steps such as executing any document or an agreement to sell or a deed of conveyance. The petitioner has taken steps for its vesting by passing a resolution in its meeting held on 16.07.2012 which appears to be sufficient for completing the vesting. 16. Now, coming to the legality of the order of the Joint Director, Higher Education dated 15.03.2017 which has been issued on the strength of the notification dated 09.05.2015, it has to be noted that it directs the petitioner to execute documents for the completion of the vesting as required under Section3(2) of the Act but it falls short of mentioning the documents or the nature of the documents which are necessary to be executed. It is therefore a vague direction and without justification particularly in the light of the resolution of the petitioner dated 16.07.2012 providing for the vesting of the land in the university. The said resolution by itself may be a sufficient document requiring no other document to be executed for the above purposes. We are unable to comprehend any document which may be required to be executed when the vesting is by a statutory provision of law. The respondents are at a loss to suggest any document which may be necessary for vesting the land in the University. 17. We may illustrate the above situation by referring to the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. The said Act provides for the vesting of land acquired on the possession being taken. Therefore, the vesting takes place by operation of law without execution of any document. Same is the situation in the present case. 18. It may be beneficial to refer here the three Judges decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. P. Kesavan and Another [ 2004 (9) SCC 772 ] which holds that where transfer of immovable property takes place by operation of law neither the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor the Registration Act, 1908 shall apply. 19. In the case of Harishchandra Hegde Vs. P. Kesavan and Another [ 2004 (9) SCC 772 ] which holds that where transfer of immovable property takes place by operation of law neither the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor the Registration Act, 1908 shall apply. 19. In the case of Harishchandra Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka and others [ 2004 (9) SCC 780 ], it was again held that Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable to transfers made by operation of law that is to say where a judicial order is passed restoring the alienated land to the members of SC/ST. 20. On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon Hindustan Lever and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [ 2004 (9) SCC 438 ]. The aforesaid was a case relating to amalgamation of companies under the order of the Court. The question arose about the imposition of stamp duty on order of the Court sanctioning the amalgamation of two companies and it was held that such an order is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act. 21. The decree or final order of civil court including orders passed under certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 or the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are certainly covered within the definition of “conveyance” as contained in the Stamp Act. Therefore, the order of amalgamation of two companies passed by the Court is obviously chargeable to stamp duty as an instrument. In these circumstances, the above authority has no application where there is no decree or order of the Court or any instrument as in the case at hand. 22. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the direction contained in the letter of the Joint Secretary, Higher Education dated 15.03.2017 is obviously unjustified and cannot be sustained in law. 23. The notification dated 09th March 2015 issued under Section 9 of the Stamp Act provides for reducing the stamp duty by 1% on instruments of transfer of immovable property from sponsoring body to private body in pursuance to the provisions of any Act of the private university presupposing the existence of an instrument of transfer ignoring the transfer by operation of law. 24. 24. The aforesaid notification for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein below:- “S.O.300.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 9 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (Act No. 14of 1999), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest so to do, hereby orders that the stamp duty chargeable on the instrument of transfer of immovable property from “Sponsoring Body” to “Private University” in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of the Private University concerned and “The Guidelines for the Establishment of Private Universities by Separate Act” issued by Education (Gr.4) Department vide order No. F.3(14)Edu-4/2006 dated 26.07.2007, shall be reduced and charged at the rate of one percent.” 25. A reading of the aforesaid notification reveals that the stamp duty has been reduced on the ‘instrument’ of transfer of immovable property from one sponsoring body to private university and would not apply where there is no instrument of transfer and where transfer is by operation of law only. The existence of an instrument of transfer is sine qua non for charging stamp duty. 26. The word ‘instrument’ is defined in Section2(xix) of the Stamp Act to include every document by which any right or liability is created, transferred, extended, extinguished or recorded. So the existence of a document of the above nature is essential to bring it within the ambit of ‘instrument’. In absence of any such document except for the Act itself and the resolution for vesting, there is no other document which could be termed as instrument so as to subject it to stamp duty. 27. Similarly, the word ‘conveyance’ has also been defined in Section2(xi) of the Stamp Act to include (i) a sale; (ii) every instrument; (iii) every decree or final order of any civil court or every order made under certain Sections of the Companies Act, 2013 or Banking Regulation Act, 1949; (iv) sale of air rights and, (v) sale/consent related to rights by which property or any estate or any interest in any property is transferred to or vested in any person intervivos. 28. 28. In view of the above definition, as conveyance includes a sale/consent by which interest in any property is transferred to or vested in any person intervivos, it may be that one may treat the resolution of the petitioner dated 16.07.2012 for vesting the property in the university as a conveyance and consequently to be an instrument chargeable to stamp duty under Article 21 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act, but we are not expressing any final opinion on the subject as we have not been called upon to decide such an issue in this petition. 29. One cannot be oblivious to the fact that some of the Private University Act may not be providing for vesting of land in the aforesaid manner and may require execution of some instrument for completing the vesting i.e., for transfer of immovable property from the sponsoring body to the University. In that situation such an instrument would naturally be chargeable to stamp duty. Therefore, reduction of rate of stamp duty would be beneficial to the parties to the above kind of transaction. The above notification is of general application and not for application upon the petitioner only. 30. The notification dated 09.03.2015 in the above context would not be offending any provision of the Stamp Act. Therefore, it cannot be held to be ultra vires to the Stamp Act. 31. In view of the above discussion, we quash the order dated 15.03.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary, Higher Education with no other relief to the petitioner at this stage as so far no proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Stamp Act for levying, charging and realizing any stamp duty in respect of the transfer of the land in question from the petitioner to the university by operation of law. 32. The writ petition stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.