The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a purchaser challenging a recovery order passed against the original seller for deficit stamp duty. It held the petitioner lacked locus standi and an alternative remedy existed. The interim stay was vacated.
Writ petition dismissed; interim stay order vacated; pending applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.421/ 2015
1
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.421/ 2015
M/ s Puja Construction Limited-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.-Respondents
Date of Order-: : -8th May, 2015 Hon ' ble Ms. Ju st ice Bela M. Tr iv edi
Mr. Mahesh Gupta, for petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, G.C. for respondents.
ORDER
By t h e Cou r t : -
1 . The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Collector (Stamps) in case No.1087/ 2012 (414/ 2010), whereby the respondent No.2 has directed to recover Rs.64 lacs from one Shri Babulal Meena towards the deficit stamps duty, on the patta dated 20.01.2007 executed by JDA in his favour in respect of the land in question. 2 . In the instant case, it appears that JDA had issued a patta to the said Babulal Meena on 29.11.2006, which was got registered by him on 20.01.2007. It further appears that he having not paid the requisite stamp duty on the said patta, the respondent No.2 had issued a notice under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). However, in the said proceedings, the Babulal Meena did not appear and the respondent No.2 proceeded exparte against him and passed the order on
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.421/ 2015
2
12.5.2009. Thereafter, the said Babulal Meena having approached the respondent No.2, the said case was reopened, and after hearing him, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 09.07.2014 which is at Annexure-2.
3 . The said order has been sought to be challenged by the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had purchased the said land in question from the said Babulal Meena vide the sale deed dated 20.01.2007 and therefore he is an affected person. It is very surprising that though the order was passed against the said Babulal Meena by the respondent No.2, he has not been made the party respondent in the present petition. It is also very surprising that the said Babulal Meena has chosen not to challenge the said order and the same has been sought to be challenged by the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.2 should have given opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, however the court does not find any substance in the said submission. When, the deficit stamp duty is sought to be recovered from the said Babulal Meena in whose favour the patta was issued by the JDA, the question of hearing the present petitioner who is totally a stranger to the said patta, does not arise.
4 . In any case, as rightly submitted by the learned Govt. Counsel Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi for the respondents, if the petitioner was aggrieved the impugned order passed by the respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.421/ 2015
3
No.2, he had an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 65 of the said Act by filing the revision. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on the decision of Apex Court in case of Smt. Har Devi Asnani Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3748, and submitted that the petition cannot be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy of revision under Section 65 of the said Act. However, in the instant case the respondent No.2 has not passed the impugned order against the petitioner nor the person against whom the impugned order has been passed has bothered to challenge the said order.
5 . It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had obtained the exparte interim order on 16.01.2015 for staying operation of the impugned order from the Coordinate Bench, by misrepresenting that though the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.2 in respect of the conveyance deed executed by the said Babulal Meena in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 had not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such a practice is strongly deprecated. Without stretching the matter any further, the petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated forthwith. By this order, the stay application and other pending application if any, also stand dismissed.
( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J. R.Vaishnav 211. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Ramesh Vaishnav-Personal Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, being a stranger to the patta for which deficit stamp duty was recovered from the original owner, is entitled to challenge the recovery order.
Whether the petitioner is precluded from filing a writ petition as an alternative statutory remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Har Devi Asnani Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶18
Smt. Har Devi Asnani Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3748 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s Puja Construction Limited
The State of Rajasthan
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
