Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Gupta v. Gov of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CW/3730/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged enhanced stamp duty demand on a plot, arguing residential classification and erroneous consent recording. Court held disputed facts require revision remedy under Section 65. Writ disposed with refund of enhanced duty subject to revision success.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to revision remedy; writ allowed in principle for refund of enhanced duty subject to future revision outcome.

Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Gov of Raj and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3730/2015

¶4

Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta, R/o 282, Guru Jambeshwar Nagar, Gali No.9, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Government of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Additional Collector (Stamps), Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶9

Sub Registrar, Jaipur-IV, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Vyas with Mr. Vaibhav Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶13

Reportable

¶14

Judgment reserved on 29/01/2024

¶15

Judgment pronounced on 02/02/2024

¶16

This petition is filed aggrieved of demand created for stamp duty to be paid on the plot purchased by petitioner.

¶17

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has sold the property, the issue that survives is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of enhanced stamp duty paid in pursuance to the impugned order.

¶18

The brief facts are that Nokha Agro Services (for short ‘seller’) purchased Plot No.C-112 Lal Kothi Scheme, “C” Block, Jaipur in auction held on 02.11.2011. On 22.01.2015 the

[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]

[CW-3730/2015]

(2 of 5)

petitioner jointly with his wife purchased the plot from seller. There was dispute with regard to valuation of the property. Notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur for payment of stamp duty of Rs.6.37 lacs, valuing the property at 491.81 lacs. The petitioner filed reply. The order dated 04.02.2015 was passed creating demand of Rs.7,99,485/-. The Review petition filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘Act of 1998’) was dismissed on 23.02.2015, hence the present petition.

¶23

While issuing notice on 20.04.2015, following order was passed:-

¶24

“ Defect is overruled.

¶25

Issue notice. Shri Madhusudhan Shrimonai Sharma accepts notice on behalf of Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents. He prays for time to file reply. Name of Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General be shown in the cause list.

¶26

List after four weeks.

¶27

In the meantime, petitioner may deposit the demanded sum under protest, which would be liable to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 7% per annum if eventually the writ petition succeeds. On deposit of the aforesaid sum under protest, the registered document may be handed over to the petitioner.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy of revision under Section 65 of Act of 1998.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seller had purchased residential plot in the auction held by Jaipur Development Authority. The petitioner was sanctioned home loan

[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]

[CW-3730/2015]

(3 of 5)

by ICICI Bank Limited for purchase of plot. The land was never got converted to commercial plot. Valuation of the land for stamp duty is being done by treating it to be commercial property. He further submits that consent of the petitioner that he is ready to pay enhanced stamp duty was wrongly recorded in the order creating demand. The contention is that the conditions of Circular No.1/2009, relied upon by the respondent does not apply to present case. It is argued that petitioner has sold the property and the sale deed was registered treating the plot to be residential.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order and submits that purchase of the property by seller shall not determine the present nature and valuation of the property. The property is situated on 80 feet road surrounded by the commercial activities. The assessment of valuation was done relying upon the guidelines given in Circular No.1/2009 and on the basis of physical inspection of the site. He relied upon the photographs annexed with reply to substantiate that the area has developed as commercial hub. To support the valuation reliance is placed upon the contents of the representation made by the petitioner wherein, it was stated that petitioner had paid four times price of residential District Level Committee rates. The contention that consent of the petitioner was wrongly recorded in the impugned order is refuted by stating that no such issue was pressed in the Review proceedings.

¶35

Before proceeding further, Section 65 of Act of 1998 is reproduced below:-

¶36

“ 65. Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.-

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]

[CW-3730/2015]

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the 1[Inspector General of Stamp or Collector] under Chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 29 and under section 35 of the Act, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order:

¶41

2[ Provided that the Inspector General of Stamp or any other officer authorised specially or generally be the Inspector General of Stamp may, if aggrieved by any order referred to in this subsection, may file revision before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within 180 days from the date of the communication of the order.]

¶42

3[ Provided further that] no revision application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of⁴ [ Twenty five percent ] of the recoverable amount.

¶43

(2) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo moto or on information received from the registering officer or otherwise call for and examine the record of any case decided in proceeding held by the¹ [Inspector General of Stamp or Collector] for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit:

¶44

Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.”

¶45

The valuation of the property has to be determined by taking into consideration various factors. The physical inspection of the site was undertaken before passing order creating demand. There is factual dispute as to whether the properties in the vicinity are being used for commercial purposes which shall impact the valuation of plot in question. Disputed questions of facts involved regarding valuation of the property and the petitioner has a

¶46

[2024:RJ-JP:4770-DB]

¶47

[CW-3730/2015]

¶48

remedy of revision under Section 65 of Act of 1998. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is relegated to alternate remedy.

¶49

As per Section 65, pre deposit of 25% of the recoverable amount was to be made but the petitioner in pursuance to the order of the Court dated 20.04.2015 has deposited the entire amount under protest. It is clarified that in the eventuality of succeeding in revision petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the enhanced amount along with interest @ 7% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶51

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶52

Simple Kumawat /

Manoj Kumar Gupta v. Gov of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Gupta v. Gov of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B.R. Construction Company Vs Additional Director

Arvind Shah Vs Dgit (Inv.)

Nitin Tetarwal S/O Late Shri Ishwar Singh Vs General Manager

Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors

Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors

Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors