[2025:RJ-JP:38473-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9045/2020 State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub- Registrar, Alwar-II(Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Shri Kailash Chand Meena S/o Shri Krishan Lal Meena, Resident Surer, Tehsil Rajgardh, District Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah AAG with Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj and Ms. Monisha Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay with Mr. Kaushal Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Judgment RESERVED ON : 18.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2025 (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) 1. The writ petition is filed for assailing the order passed by Tax Board dated 28.04.2017 whereby the revision filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Collector (Stamps) Circle, Alwar dated 06.01.2015 was allowed and the order passed against the respondent was set aside. 2. The brief facts which have been stated are that respondent- Kailash Chand Meena entered into an agreement for purchase of land from Shivcharan and Ramcharan Meena measuring 3.77 hectares on 17.07.2009 in Khasra No. 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 302, 303, 304. The respondent paid advance [2025:RJ-JP:38473-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-9045/2020] amount of Rs. 1,51,000/- to the concerned Khatedar of the land at Bhugor Tehsil, Alwar. As per the agreement which has been placed on record, the sale was to be duly registered by 30.11.2010 after receiving the remaining amount. It mentioned that the registry should be made in his name or in fact, as many number of persons as the purchaser may so desired. 3. On denial the purchaser would be entitled to get it executed from the Court for which the cost shall be incurred by the seller. The agreement also stated that the purchaser would be entitled to divide and demarcate plots in the land and also make map of the land and accordingly, would also be entitled to make road and the drainage to which the purchasers would have no objection. It was also mentioned that the owner would not be cultivating the land; on the basis of such revelation the respondent proceeded to divide the land in the plots and sold the land to various persons. Thus, without depositing the stamp duty for the original purchase which he had done of the land from the concerned original owner namely Shivcharan and Ramcharan S/o Kanhaiya. Further, sale was done by developing the land without paying revenue to the Government; on the direction of the IG stamps, the sub registrar vide letter dated 28.08.2014 sent a notice to the respondent under Section 54 of Rajasthan Stamps Act 1998 and called upon to deposit stamp duty of Rs. 6,93,000/-. Since no response was received, the sub-registrar-II referred the case to the Collector, Alwar in terms of Sections 37 and 35 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. 4. The Collector valued the property at Rs. 1,26,00,000/- and on which stamp duty of Rs. 6,30,000/-, surcharge Rs. 63000/-, [2025:RJ-JP:38473-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-9045/2020] penalty of Rs. 9,09,680/- and interest of Rs. 4,54,840/- from the date of execution of document dated 17.07.2009 till the date of the passing of the order @ 12% per annum in total Rs. 20,57,520/- was directed to be paid; the respondent deposited 25% of the amount and filed revision petition which was allowed by the Tax Board on the ground that the original sale agreement was not registered. It was stated that the sale cannot be said to have been executed as the possession cannot be said to have been taken. It was further the case of the respondent that the land has been directly sold by original purchaser in parts to various plot-holders and the original agreement had never been executed. In the circumstances, it was his submission that he was not required to pay any stamp duty. It was also stated that the land has been sold to various persons who were the purchasers. The Tax Board relying on the submissions made by the respondent proceeded to hold that the agreement had never been acted upon and in fact, the sale deed was executed in name of 21 different persons including original owner Ramcharan and Shivcharan and therefore, there was no evasion of stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that modus operandi adopted by the respondent was only to deprive the State from valuable revenue. While learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tax Board and pointed out that the respondent was stranger to the sale executed directly by the owner of the land of whole plots in favour of the concerned persons. 6. Having noticed the aforesaid facts and carefully examining the terms of the sale agreement entered between the original [2025:RJ-JP:38473-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-9045/2020] seller and the respondent, we are satisfied that the respondent entered into the possession of the property which was originally owned by Shivcharan and Ramcharan. Shivcharan and Ramcharan had explicitly stated that the land would no longer be sold, rather no cultivation will be done by them. The sellers had also given rights to respondent to develop the land. It was also agreed that the respondent would be authorized to sell the land in parts to different individuals, with the respondent being responsible for determining the sale consideration (i.e., conceding the rates). It is evident that the seller had parted with possession of the land and handed over to the respondent. Once the respondent took possession and subsequently executed sale deeds as though the original owner had directly sold the individual plots, the responsibility for payment of stamp duty fell upon the respondent. It is further alleged that the respondent acted fraudulently in this regard. Admittedly, possession of the land was handed over to the respondent for the purpose of constructing roads. The petitioner thus claims that the sale was effected in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Once the sale was executed along with delivery of possession, the transaction would be considered complete and binding under the said provision. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent cannot be allowed to state that the respondent was foreign to the proceedings. We find no merit in the respondent's contentions and conclude that the approach adopted by the Tax Board lacks any legal or factual basis. The mere fact that the respondent's name appears as the purchaser in all the property transactions does not, by itself, invalidate the original buyer's acquisition or the subsequent [2025:RJ-JP:38473-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-9045/2020] delivery of possession. Therefore, the order passed by the Tax Board is found to be legally and factually incorrect. 8. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 28.04.2017. The petitioner is now directed to proceed to recover the stamp duty evaded by the respondent along with interest in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. No costs. 11. All Pending application stands disposed of accordingly. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ ANIL SHARMA /65