JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. Since all the instant writ petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7620/2015, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case. 1.1. The prayer clauses read as under : “It is therefore, humbly prayed, that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notifications dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure-6), 08.05.2012 (Annexure-7) and 12.07.2012 (Annexure-8) be declared illegal and be quashed; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notice dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-4) be declared illegal and be quashed; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notification dated 09.03.2015 (Annexure-9) may be given retrospective effect from the date of impugned notifications; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to refund to the petitioner the excess stamp duty recovered pursuant to the impugned notice dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure-4) along with the rate of 12% per annum from the date it is recovered till the amount is paid back to the petitioner; (v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to effect registration of the documents submitted by the petitioner in future without making valuation on the basis of the impugned notifications but on the basis of nature/classification of the land existing on the date of sale deed; (vi) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (vii) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a private limited company, engaged M/s Sterling and Wilson Services Pvt. Ltd. (in short, "the contractor") to set up a 1 MW Solar PV Plant. Pursuant to this, a Letter of Award dated 08.05.2013 was issued, stipulating that the contractor would establish, operate, and manage the Solar PV Plant on behalf of the petitioner at agreed costs. 2.1. Pursuant to this, a Letter of Award dated 08.05.2013 was issued, stipulating that the contractor would establish, operate, and manage the Solar PV Plant on behalf of the petitioner at agreed costs. 2.1. In connection with setting up of the power plant, the petitioner purchased an agricultural land in Village Birami, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali, under respondent No. 3's jurisdiction, by a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2013, after negotiations with the vendor. The purchased land was later converted for industrial use under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007, read with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Area Allotment) Rules, 1959. 2.2. As per the notification dated 09.03.2015, the D.L.C. rates for agricultural land away from the main road (as involved herein), were Rs.1,19,392/-, but the petitioner purchased the land at a market value i.e. five times the prescribed value. 2.3. Respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 13.11.2013, under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1998’), informing the petitioner that the agricultural land purchased by registered sale deed was undervalued and that stamp duty on the revised amount must be paid, failing which proceedings under Section 51 of the Act of 1998 would be initiated against the petitioner. 2.3.1. Subsequently, notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012, and 12.07.2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned notifications’), were issued by the respondent imposing stamp duty based on the future use of the land purchased by the petitioner, and informed that in case the same is not paid, it would result into cancellation of such conversion of land. The petitioner, while depositing the full amount on 04.09.2013, reserved its right to challenge the duty so levied. 2.4. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification dated 09.03.2015, superseding earlier notifications, determining the rates for assessment of market value of various categories of lands in the State. 3. Thus, in the above factual background, the petitioner, through the present petition, challenges the validity of the impugned notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012, and 12.07.2012 imposing stamp duty based on the future use of land, as well as the notice dated 13.11.2013 stating the sale deed being undervalued, alongwith other related reliefs. 4. The main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Thus, in the above factual background, the petitioner, through the present petition, challenges the validity of the impugned notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012, and 12.07.2012 imposing stamp duty based on the future use of land, as well as the notice dated 13.11.2013 stating the sale deed being undervalued, alongwith other related reliefs. 4. The main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Abhishek Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and as averred in the writ petition, is that the respondents have failed to show as to how the sale deed was undervalued, despite it carrying more value than the D.L.C. rates, so prescribed. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the market value has to be determined with reference to the date of execution of the instrument and that admittedly on the date of execution of the instrument, i.e., the sale deed, the land was agricultural in nature. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that vide a notification dated 25.02.2008, the State Government had prohibited the charge of stamp duty on a document on the basis of future use of land; the said notification has not been superseded by any future/subsequent notification(s). 4.2.1. He further submitted that a conjoint reading of Sections 2(xix) and 3 of the Act of 1998 clarifies that stamp duty is chargeable on the instrument, and not on the person/Firm executing it, or the land's future use, for which the land can be used. In the absence of a specific provision for levy based on future use, the impugned notifications could not have been issued. Further, the State cannot go beyond the Statute/Act for fetching more revenue. 4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, the stamp duty paid under protest, upon being found to be unlawful (as in the present case), is required to be refunded back to the person (petitioner herein) depositing it. 4.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Additional District Magistrate (Revenue) vs Siri Ram, (2000) 5 SCC 451 ; (ii) Union of India & Ors. vs S. Srinivasan, (2012) 7 SCC 683 ; (iii) State of U.P. vs Ambrish Tandon (2012) 5 SCC 566 ; (iv) Assam Company Limited Vs. State of Assam, (2001) 4 SCC 202 ; (v) Govind Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. vs S. Srinivasan, (2012) 7 SCC 683 ; (iii) State of U.P. vs Ambrish Tandon (2012) 5 SCC 566 ; (iv) Assam Company Limited Vs. State of Assam, (2001) 4 SCC 202 ; (v) Govind Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (S.L.P. (C) No. 24155 of 2018, decided on 18.04.2024). 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5.1. Learned AAG submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned notifications, and that for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, relevant factor behind issuance thereof, is to determine the actual market value of the property and not merely the face value of it (agricultural land, in the instant case). 5.2. Learned AAG further submitted that the letter of award was issued on 08.05.2013, while the land was purchased by the petitioner on 09.07.2013, which was subsequently converted for industrial purposes, and thus, the petitioner’s intent for putting the land to commercial/industrial use was crystal clear, from the very initial stage. Thus, the sale deed was rightly determined to be undervalued, and the impugned notice dated 13.11.2013 was a corrective measure by the State to recover the deficient stamp duty as assessed by its authorities. 5.3. Learned AAG also submitted that the present case is not of futuristic use of the land and rather it is concealment of material particulars by the petitioner for the purposes of evading the stamp duty and that the petitioner, instead of mentioning the commercial purpose despite him purchasing the said land in question with the sole purpose of setting up a solar power plant, it mentioned ‘agricultural land’ in the sale deed. 5.4. Learned AAG, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Satyam Properties (Civil Appeal No.s. 3671-3684 of 2003, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.07.2010). (ii) M/s. Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6364/2005, decided by a Coordinate 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. (ii) M/s. Paradise Mehak Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6364/2005, decided by a Coordinate 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that the present petitions lay challenge to the notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012, and 12.07.2012 vis-a-vis levy of stamp duty for the future use of the land; and the notice dated 13.11.2013 issued under Section 54 of the Act of 1998, contending that the respondents are not justified in demanding the additional stamp duty of Rs. 9,54,570/-, on count of the erroneous conclusion, regarding the sale deed being undervalued. Present petitions also seek retrospective application of the notice dated 09.03.2015. I. Qua the Notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012, and 12.07.2012. 8. This court observes that vide the aforementioned notifications the respondents made an assessment and levied stamp duty for the future use of the land purchased. In order to ascertain the legality of the impugned notifications, it is pertinent to understand the guideline which is to be followed in determining the quantum of duty. The same has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Ambrish Tandon & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2012, decided on 20.01.2012), the relevant para of which is reproduced hereunder: “... 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.” 8.1. This court therefore observes that the while assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty, the nature of user as is relatable to the date of purchase is to be examined. In the instant case, the petitioner with a view to setup Solar Power Plants has approached and granted M/s Sterling and Wilson Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Contractor) a letter of award dated 08.05.2013, for setting up of a 1MW power Solar PV Plant. The same was much before the execution of the sale deed in question, dated 09.07.2013. In the instant case, the petitioner with a view to setup Solar Power Plants has approached and granted M/s Sterling and Wilson Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Contractor) a letter of award dated 08.05.2013, for setting up of a 1MW power Solar PV Plant. The same was much before the execution of the sale deed in question, dated 09.07.2013. The factum of awarding the letter vis-a-vis setting up of a Solar Power Plant on 08.05.2013 before the execution of the sale deed on 09.07.2013 transferring the property in the case, itself clearly shows that the intention of the petitioners was to use the said property for commercial purpose on the date of purchase itself . The nature of user on the date of purchase of the property is relatable solely to the setting up of the Solar Power Plant which is clearly not agricultural in nature and therefore the apparent agricultural use as contended by the learned counsel is not acceptable and the same is not relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. 8.2. This Court therefore observes that the nature of user relatable to the date of purchase is commercial and the same only will be relevant for the purpose of calculation of the stamp duty as has been done by the respondents in the present case, and rightly so. II. Qua the Notice Dated 13.11.2013 issued under Section 54 of the Act of 1998 9. This Court observes that Section 47-A of the Act empowers registering officer to impound an instrument and order payment of deficit duty along with penalty if the property value stated in it is below the minimum value determined under the rules. Therefore, this court observes that the notice dated 13.11.2013 issued under Section 54 inter alia stating the sale deed to be undervalued and calling the petitioner to pay a stamp duty of Rs. 9,54,570/-, is in accordance with law and is not liable to be refunded. III. Qua the Retrospective Application of the Notification Dated 09.03.2015 10. Therefore, this court observes that the notice dated 13.11.2013 issued under Section 54 inter alia stating the sale deed to be undervalued and calling the petitioner to pay a stamp duty of Rs. 9,54,570/-, is in accordance with law and is not liable to be refunded. III. Qua the Retrospective Application of the Notification Dated 09.03.2015 10. This Court observes that the issue as to whether the notification dated 09.03.2015 may be given retrospective effect from the date of impugned notifications dated 26.03.2012, 08.05.2012 and 12.07.2012 is answered in negative because the said notification issued by the Finance Department, is explanatory/clarificatory in nature and giving it a retrospective effect would only create a hindrance to existing rights and liabilities of the stakeholders involved, in view of the judgment in the case of Govind Das vs. ITO, (1976)1 SCC 906 wherein it has been held that “it is a well-settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure”. 11. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners do not render any assistance to their case in the instant appeal. 12. In the light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the instant writ petitions. 13. Consequently, the present writ petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.