JUDGMENT : 1. Since both these petitions raise a common question of fact and law, this Court proposes to dispose of these petitions by this common order. 2. For the convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.12087/2019 are taken into consideration which has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: “i . the order dated 18.5.2016(Annexure-5) passed by the Collector (Stamps) in Stamp Case No.08/16 may kindly be declared illegal and quashed and set aside; ii. the order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-7) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board-Ajmer in Revision Petition No.1446/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside; iii. the communication dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-3) issued by the Sub-Registrar-Kolayat may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; iv. the notice dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-8) issued by the Sub-Registrar-Kolayat may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; v. the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the impugned demand raised against the petitioner.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956, and the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of crockery and other pottery items as well as setting up of solar plants. The petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No.77/04/2 having total area of 16 bighas situated at Gram-Nokha @ DaiyaTehsil-Kolayat No.1 District-Bikaner through sale-deed dated 15.04.2013(Annex.1) from Sh. Manok Kumar Bhari and Sh. Jai Kishan Bhari, i.e, respondents No.4 & 5. 4. After execution of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 15.04.2013, the petitioner presented the said document for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, that is, respondent No.3. The Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, after conducting enquiry, registered the aforesaid agreement on valuation of stamp fees of Rs.22,350/-and thereafter returned the documents to the petitioner. It was stated that at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the land so purchased by the petitioner was an agricultural land and accordingly was recorded in the revenue records. After the registration of the aforesaid document, an audit objection was raised that the stamp duty paid on the aforesaid document is not properly valued and is under valued. 5. After the registration of the aforesaid document, an audit objection was raised that the stamp duty paid on the aforesaid document is not properly valued and is under valued. 5. Thereafter, after a lapse of about 2 years and 10 months, the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, while taking into consideration the unfounded audit objection, issued notice to the petitioner company on the premise that the sale-deed has been under-valued for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 14.08.2013 (Annex.2) the land purchased by the petitioner came to be converted into commercial land for the purpose of installation of solar plant. 6. Subsequent to the above, the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, vide communication dated 17.02.2016 (Annex.3) requested the Deputy Inspector General (Registration) – cum – Collector (Stamps), i.e, respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings of Reference in the matter of valuation of the said document under Section 51 (2) of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, ‘the Act of 1998’) while treating that the said document executed between Sh. Manoj Kumar Bhari and Sh. Jai Kishan Bhari, i.e, respondents No.4 and 5 and the petitioner company to be under-valued. Upon receipt of the request for Reference, the Collector (Stamps), Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, registered the matter as Stamps Case No.08/2016 (Sub Registrar-Kolayat Vs. Shri Manoj Kumar Bhari & Ors.) and issued show cause notice under Section 51(3) of the Act of 1998 read with Rule 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 dated 18.02.2016 (Annex.4) to the petitioner as well as the private respondents. 7. Vide order dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5), the Collector (Stamps), Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, accepted the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner and directed the petitioner company to pay additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 1,84,098/-along with surcharge of Rs.18,404/-and registration fee Rs.36,290/-. The Collector (Stamps) in its aforesaid order also penalized the petitioner company with penalty of Rs.88,358/-on the pretext of evasion of stamp duty. The petitioner company vide aforesaid order was directed to deposit the total amount of Rs.3,27,150/-. 8. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders dated 17.2.2016 and 18.5.2016 passed by Respondent No.3 and 2 respectively the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which came to be registered as Revision Petition No.1445/2016/Bikaner. The petitioner company vide aforesaid order was directed to deposit the total amount of Rs.3,27,150/-. 8. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders dated 17.2.2016 and 18.5.2016 passed by Respondent No.3 and 2 respectively the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which came to be registered as Revision Petition No.1445/2016/Bikaner. The said revision petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide common order dated 10.06.2019, while holding that the intention of the petitioner-company for purchasing the land in question was for installation of the solar plant and thus, the valuation of the land ought to have been made as per the industrial rates instead of market value for agricultural land. It was also observed that the petitioner-company, after purchase of the land got the same converted for commercial purpose on 14.08.2013 for installation of solar power plant and hence, the land was purchased pre-dominantly for industrial purpose. The Board also made a reference to the observation of the respondent No.2 in the order dated 18.05.2016, wherein it was observed that the petitioner-company got an approval for establishment of 2 MW Solar Plant from Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Government of Rajasthan on 18.03.2013 whereas the land was purchased on 15.04.2013. Thus, the deposition of land conversion charges was a mere formality as it was amply known to the petitioner-company that the land is being purchased for industrial purpose. 9. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tax Board, the respondent no.3, vide notice dated 16.07.2019 (Annex.8) had called upon the petitioner to deposit the demand amount failing which the petitioner had been threatened with the proceedings for attachment of its properties. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders dated 10.06.2019 (Annex.7) passed by the Tax board whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the orders dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5) passed by the respondent no.2 Collector (Stamps), Bikaner for making unlawful demand of additional stamp duty from the petitioner and the communications dated 17.02.2016 (Annex.3) are contrary to the settled law and deserve to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the stamp duty on the sale-deeds cannot be subjected to stamp duty in the manner sought to be imposed considering the potential use of the property. It was submitted that this issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Aors. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Anr. [ (2012) 5 SCC 566 ], wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the market price of the land, being transacted for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, depends upon the nature and character of the land as on the date of transaction and the potential use of the land cannot be taken into consideration for determination of market value for levy of stamp duty. It was observed as under:- “15. The impugned order of the High Court shows that it was not seriously disputed about the nature of user of the building, namely, residential purpose on the date of the purchase. Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. … … ” Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Orient Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [SBCWP No.4534/2016, decided on 27.09.2016], Kochar Hospital and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Tax Board & Ors. [SBCWP No.10640/2012, decided on 15.11.2016], Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [SBCWP No.8429/2004, decided on 18.01.2017] and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi Sethia & Ors. [SBCWP No.1712/2012, decided on 13.07.2018]. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under the provisions of the Act of 1998, the Sub-Registrar as a registering authority is authorized to forward the document to the Collector (Stamps) under the belief that the instrument has been under-valued. However, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar to mention or propose the value of land / property. The determination of the prevalent market value of the land / property lies only with Collector (Stamps) However in the present matter, the Sub Registrar proceeded to determine the value of the land and thereafter forwarded the matter for initiating Reference proceedings. The determination of the prevalent market value of the land / property lies only with Collector (Stamps) However in the present matter, the Sub Registrar proceeded to determine the value of the land and thereafter forwarded the matter for initiating Reference proceedings. Moreover the Collector (Stamps) treated the same as it is and failed to apply his mind independently in the matter. Therefore, the entire basis of the proceedings against the petitioner is absolutely illegal, As such, the consequential proceedings are absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned orders dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5), passed by the respondent no.2 Collector (Stamps) Bikaner are absolutely illegal imposing penalty upon the petitioner under the premise that the petitioner had concealed facts for the purpose of evasion of stamp duty. It was submitted that imposition of penalty is not only unfounded but also contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1998. The petitioner had duly paid the stamp duty as determined by the respondent no.3 at the time of registration of the said documents. Thereafter, it is the respondent no.3 who proposed for initiating the proceedings of Reference against the petitioner. Neither the petitioner concealed any fact nor any such revelation can be made from the record of the case before the respondent no.2. However, even the Tax Board failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the orders dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5) as well as 10.06.2019 (Annex.7) are absolutely illegal and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned Senior Counsel-cum-AAG submitted that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved against the orders dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Collector (Stamps) as also the orders dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer affirming the order passed by the Collector (Stamps) along with other relief(s). It is in this regard submitted that the petitioner has not been able to point out any excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities concerned or the orders aforesaid being perverse or in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. 14. Learned Senior counsel – cum - AAG further submitted that a perusal of the sale-deeds reveals that the property shall be utilized not for agriculture purposes, but for installing 2 Mega Watt Solar Plant upon the land in question, for which permission has been granted by the Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd, Govt of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 18.03.2013. Thus, the prospective use was specified in the sale-deeds themselves and, therefore the payment of stamp duty while treating the rates as applicable to agricultural land, was not at all justified. 15. It was also submitted that the audit objection was on justifiable basis and the sale-deeds themselves speak volume about the utilization of the land and, therefore, the proceedings were rightly initiated. 16. Learned Senior counsel – cum – AAG further submitted that the purpose of use of land was specified in the sale-deed itself and immediately after purchase of the lands, conversion was sought and it fortifies the fact that the lands were to be utilized for installation of solar plant and not for any other purpose. 17. The learned Senior Counsel – cum – AAG also submits that the nature of the land is relatable to the date of purchase and in the present case, in the purchase instruments, i.e. the sale-deeds, the nature of the lands has been mentioned and that the same shall be utilized for setting up of 2 Mega Watt solar plant, Thus, it cannot be said that the purpose of use of land was for agricultural usage. 18. Learned Senior counsel – cum – AAG submitted that to the extent of passing of impugned order dated 18.05.2016 relevant provisions of the Act of 1998 as also the averments made in the sale-deeds have been considered and the order has rightly been passed. It was further submitted that in the proceedings before Collector (stamps) there is no reference or argument raised with regard to non-service of notice under Section 54 of the Act of 1998. 19. It was further submitted that in the proceedings before Collector (stamps) there is no reference or argument raised with regard to non-service of notice under Section 54 of the Act of 1998. 19. Learned Senior counsel – cum – AG also submitted that to the extent of passing of order dated 10.06.2019 by the Tax Board all the arguments raised by the petitioner have been dealt with and considered by the Tax Board while passing the order impugned as also, the averments made in the sale-deeds have been considered with regard to nature of the user of the land relatable as on the date of purchase. It is further submitted that the order in question is in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P Vs Ambrish Tandon and others (supra) and there is no illegality while passing the orders impugned. Learned Senior Counsel – cum – AAG placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P. [2015(2) MWN (Civil) 129], in which it was observed as under:- “26. Undoubtedly, the Collector is not permitted to launch upon a speculative inquiry about the prospective use to which a land may be put to use at an uncertain future date. The market value of the property has to be determined with reference to the use to which the land is capable reasonably of being put to immediately or in the proximate future The possibility of the Tand becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use and enjoyment reflects upon the potentiality of the land This potential has to be assessed with reference to the date of the execution of the instrument In other words, the power of the Collector cannot be unduly circumscribed by ruling out the potential to which the land can be advantageously deployed at the time of the execution of the instrument or a period reasonably proximate thereto. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor, which influences the market value of the land. 27. Again the use to which land in the area had been put is a material consideration. If the land surrounding the property in question has been put to commercial use, it would be improper to hold that this is a circumstance which should not weigh with the Collector as a factor, which influences the market value of the land. 27. The fact that the land was put to a particular use, say for instance a commercial purpose at a later point in time, may not be a relevant criterion for deciding the value for the purpose of Stamp duty, as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Ambush Tandon and another, 2012 (5) SCC 566 . This is because the nature of the user is relatable to the date of purchase which is relevant for the purpose of computing the Stamp duty -Where, however, the potential of the land can be assessed on the date of the execution of the instrument itself, that is clearly a circumstance which is relevant and germane to the determination of the true market value. At the same time, the exercise before the Collector has to be based on adequate material and cannot be a matter of hypothesis or surmise. The Collector must have material on the record to the effect that there has been a change of use or other contemporaneous Sale Deeds in respect of the adjacent areas that would have a bearing on the market value of the property which is under consideration The Collector. therefore, would be within jurisdiction in referring to exemplars or comparable sale instances which have a bearing on the true market value of the property which is required to be assessed. If the sale instances are comparable, they would also reflect the potentiality of the land which would be taken into consideration in a price agreed upon between a vendor and a purchaser.” 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. This Court finds that the sale-deeds dated 15.04.2013 had a categorical mentioning that the petitioner-company has been granted approval for installation of 2 MW Solar Plant by Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Government of Rajasthan on 18.03.2013 on the agricultural land. In the sale-deeds dated 15.04.2013 the nature of the land also been specifically mentioned as “agricultural”. 21. This Court finds that the sale-deeds dated 15.04.2013 had a categorical mentioning that the petitioner-company has been granted approval for installation of 2 MW Solar Plant by Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Government of Rajasthan on 18.03.2013 on the agricultural land. In the sale-deeds dated 15.04.2013 the nature of the land also been specifically mentioned as “agricultural”. The Sub-Registrar, Kolayat had, after recording his satisfaction and while taking into consideration all the relevant documents including the sale-deeds, correctly determined the market value of the land in question as defined in Section 2(xxii) of the Act of 1998, which reads as under:- “2 (xxiii) "market value" in relation to any property, which is the subject matter of an instrument, means the price which such property would have fetched or would fetch if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument as determined by in such manner and by such authority as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher.” Therefore, the argument of the respondents that due to prospective use of the land as “industrial land”, the stamp duty should have been in accordance with the market value of the land to be assessed while treating it to be industrial land and not agricultural land, is not sustainable as the market value has to be determined on the basis of price, which such property would have fetched or would fetch if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument. 22. The reason for issuing impugned notices by the respondents is only on the ground that the use of the land since was mentioned in the sale-deeds dated 15.04.2013 for installation of 2 MW Solar plant is also not justified as it is the settled proposition of law that the market value of the land, which has to be registered, has to be assessed on the basis of nature of the property on the date of the execution of the instrument and not on the basis of prospective use of the land. It is an admitted position that the assessment, when was done while treating the land to be agricultural land at the time of the execution of the sale-deed, the stamp duty and the registration charges have been duly paid by the petitioner as determined by the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat and thus, the action of the Sub-Registrar in proceeding to determine the value of the land and forwarding the matter for initiating reference proceedings to the Collector is not proper. 23. This Court also finds that in similar circumstances, where the market value of the property was re-assessed while taking into consideration the prospective use of the property, has been treated to be not sustainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that, “merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criteria for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty”. This Court also, in the cases of Orient Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Kochar Hospital and Research Center Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Indra Devi & Ors. (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi Sethia & Ors. (supra), has also held the same following the judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (supra) and no SAW or SLP has been filed in these matters. Thus, the same is the law of the land, which prevails. 24. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel – cum – AAG in the case of Pushpa Sareen (supra) has no binding effect in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (supra) and followed by this Court. 25. In view of the above, this Court finds that the matters require interference and the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 26. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned communications dated 17.02.2016 (Annex.3) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat; the orders dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5) passed by the Collector (Stamps), Bikaner; the orders dated 10.06.2019 (Annex.7) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the consequential notices dated 16.07.2019 (Annex.7) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat are quashed and set aside. 27. The stay applications and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.