[2025:RJ-JP:21495-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2724/2011 Lokesh Kumar Son of Shri Ram Prasad, aged about 33 years, Resident of B-20, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Finance, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Collector (Stamps), Circle Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Sub- Registrar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. District Level Committee for Determination of Market Value Land and Building for Bharatpur through its President, District Collector, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kartikeya Sharma, Adv. for Mr.Sandeep Taneja, AAG. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 21/05/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the vires of Rules 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules’) being the ultra vires of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The issue raised in this petition is no longer res-integra and has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6364/2005 titled as M/s Paradise Mehak Properties Private Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. decided on 11.04.2018. The Division Bench disposed of the petition without declaring the Rule 58 of the Rules as ultra vires and directing to apply the provisions of Rule 58 of the Rules and Section 51 of the Act harmoniously. [2025:RJ-JP:21495-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2724/2011] 3. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced :- “In view of the above, we are inclined to apply the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satyam Properties (supra). Accordingly, without declaring Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 to be ultra virus, direction is given to apply two provisions harmoniously. If the market value of the property is required to be determined in the opinion of the Registering Officer, it would be by applying the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. In doing so, the consequence of penalty can follow, as given under sub-Section 3 of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 but it would be after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. The impugned order passed by the Collector is set aside with a direction to pass a fresh order after an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In doing so, the Collector would further look into the nature of the property at the time of submission of the instrument for registration. It would not be in reference to the subsequent conversion after the sale. It goes without saying that determination of market value of the property would be in reference to the nature of property at the time of submission of instrument by applying the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. Both the writ petition are disposed of with the aforesaid.” 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed in M/s Paradise Mehak Properties Private Ltd (supra). (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J GAURAV /17