[2025:RJ-JP:43984-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4985/2021 State Of Rajasthan, Through The Sub- Registrar, Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Arjun Ram Son Of Shri Asuram, Resident Of Village Adhakhadya, Tehsil Sujangarh, Distt. Churu. 2. Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Ladu Ram, Resident Of Village Narsas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. 3. Jodhraj Singh Of Shri Geedaram (Deceased), Through His Legal Representatives- 4. Harphool Singh Son Of Late Shri Jodhraj, Resident Of Village Khedi Dhukiya, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. 5. Hari Ram Son Of Late Shri Jodhraj, Resident Of Village Khedi Dhukiya, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. 6. Jagdish Son Of Late Shri Jodhraj, Resident Of Village Khedi Dhukiya, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 03/11/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, erred in allowing the revision petition of the respondents and erroneously set aside the order dated 29.01.2017 passed by the Collector(Stamp), Jaipur, holding the [2025:RJ-JP:43984-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-4985/2021] land to be of commercial nature and thereby assessing the stamp duty and also imposing penalty for evading of stamp duty. Learned counsel also submits that the order passed by the learned Collector(Stamp) was not required to be interfered with, as the concerned property which was sold was situated in an area where there were other properties of commercial nature. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has invited our attention to Paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer which reflects that the area where the land was situated was near the main bazzar and shops, wherein there were certain kiosks which were also situated on the southern side of the concerned property and a bus stand was also situated on the western side and the main entrance of the area towards which the land was situated. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. It would be apposite to quote point No.5 of the Circular dated 01.10.1999, as applicable for the purpose of assessing a commercial property:- “5. वावसाययक भूयम के मूलाँकन के संबंध मे: भूमम को वावसामयक मान कर वावसामयक दर से मूलाँकन तभी मकया जावे जबमक दसावेज के मनषादन के समय - (क) उपयोग वावसामयक हो, अथवा (ख) भूमम का वावसामयक उपयोग हेतु रपानरण हआ हो, अथवा (ग) भूमम सानीय मनकाय की वावसामयक योजना मे ससत हो, अथवा (घ) भूमम दुकानों या उस केत के वावसामयक पररसरों की पंसक मे ससत हो। मजस केत मे वावसामयक दर मनरारररत नहीं हो वहां आवासीय दर की दू गनी दर को वावसामयक दर मानकर मूलांकर करे। [2025:RJ-JP:43984-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-4985/2021] उपरोक कारणों से मभन कारणों से यमद भूमम को वावसामयक मान कर मूलाँकन मकया जाता है तो पंजीयन अमरकारी का यह दामयत होगा मक वह वावसामयक उपयोग सामबत करे।" 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the land would be treated and considered as commercial property, and appropriate assessment of commercial rate would be assessed for the purpose of stamp duty, provided the concerned property is used for commercial purposes or the land has been converted as commercial, or the land has been declared by the local authority to be in a commercial scheme or the property is situated in the line with shops or commercial properties on the same road. 6. Thus, essentially if there was a report that there are shops or commercial properties adjacent to the concerned property in question, the decision of the Collector (Stamp) would not have been required to be interfered with. However, we find it otherwise, as there is no report of there being any adjacent shop or commercial property next to the concerned building which is a haveli in-ruins. It is also noticed that it has been restored. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that it has been used for any commercial purpose. Thus, as notices above from the Circular dated 01.10.1999, all the four clauses of point No.5 would not be applicable and the Rajasthan Tax Board, therefore, correctly reached to the conclusion that the land not fall within the nature of a commercial property. 7. The order passed by the Collector (Stamp), Jaipur, therefore, has been rightly set aside, which we do not find any reason to interfere with. [2025:RJ-JP:43984-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-4985/2021] 8. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition being misconceived, is dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/DIKSHA/02