[2025:RJ-JP:38301-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13478/2012 State Of Rajasthan through Sub Registrar, Sanganer-First, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Manish Jain S/o Shri Harshverdhan Jain Address-B-130, Janta Colony, Jaipur 2. Tarachand S/o Shri Bhonwari Lal Address Gram Mahapura Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 3. Pooranmal S/o Shri Bhonwari Lal, address GRam Mahapura Tehsil Sanganer 4. Madho Lal S/o Shri Bhonwari Lal address Gram Mahapura, Tehsil, Sanganer District Jaipur 5. Collector (Stamps) Jaipur-II Jaipur 6. Rajasthan Tax Board Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Ms. Monisha Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mitesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 18/09/2025 Both the counsel submit that the issue involved in the present petition concluded in terms of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of DBCWP No. 13480/2012 (State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Ritu Jain and Ors) decided on 26.03.2025 which reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the State submits that the property was not properly valued, there was no spot inspection done by the Collector while dealing with the reference. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that the valuation is [2025:RJ-JP:38301-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13478/2012] proper and based upon the documents and evidence produced. The concurrent findings recorded by the both the authorities are that the land in question was half kilometer away from the main road of the village. The trace map issued by Tehsildar to scale was relied and the valuation was done by applying the District Level Committee Rate. In the absence of factual error or legal error much less perversity in the impugned orders and in view of the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India, no case is made out for interference in the concurrent findings recorded. The petition is dismissed." In view of the above, the present petition is also dismissed, mutatis mutandis. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J ANIL SHARMA /59