[2025:RJ-JP:7729-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19564/2018 1. Smt. Nathi Devi W/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur 2. Chhitarmal S/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur 3. Jagdish S/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur 4. Radha D/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur 5. Sundari D/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur 6. Mohri D/o Late Shri Gangaram, R/o Vill. Dinsa, Teh. Amer Dist. Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Sukhdev, R/o 72 Basant Vihar Bajri Mandi Road Panchyawala Sirsi Road Jaipur 2. Sub Registrar, Jalsu Dist. Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramanuj Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. for Mr. Arvind Kumar Chawla, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Collector (Stamps), Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:7729-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19564/2018] 2. The brief facts are that Ganga Ram (now deceased) and Nathi Devi entered into an agreement to sell with Rajveer Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘purchaser’) for sale of the immovable property. With the execution of agreement to sell, the possession of the property was handed over. The purchaser on 22.09.2014 filed an application under the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1998’) before Collector for determination of the stamp duty. In response to notice issued to the petitioner it was stated that Ganga Ram has expired. The Sub Registrar was directed by the Collector Stamps to conduct the site inspection and to prepare valuation report. During the inspection, petitioner submitted an application dated 29.11.2016 along with a cancellation agreement dated 26.12.2014 stating that the earlier agreement has been cancelled. On the basis of the evaluation, the impugned order was passed creating a demand for the stamp duty due. The recovery proceedings were initiated hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has statutory remedy of revision under Section 65 of Act of 1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a stamp duty has been levied upon a cancelled agreement to sell and there was no transfer of possession of property vide agreement dated 22.06.2012. 5. The petitioner has a statutory remedy. The Collector recorded a finding that as per the agreement to sell the possession of the property in question was handed over. The dispute as to whether possession of the property handed over or [2025:RJ-JP:7729-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19564/2018] not and subsequent cancellation of the agreement are disputed question of fact and need adducing of the evidence. 6. The petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to avail remedy of revision. 7. In the eventuality of petitioner filing the revision subject to complying the other pre-requisites for revision, the same shall be considered to have filed within limitation considering that the petition is pending since 2018. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Mohita/25