[2025:RJ-JP:13892-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13480/2012 State Of Rajasthan Through Sub Registrar, Sanganer - First, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Ritu Jain Wife Of Sh. Manish Jian, B-130, Janta Colony, Jaipur 2. Tarachand Son Of Shri Bhonwari Lal, Gram Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur 3. Pooranmal Son Of Shri Bhonwari Lal, Gram Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur 4. Madho Lal Son Of Shri Bhonwari Lal, Gram Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur 5. Collector Stamps Jaipur - Ii, Jaipur 6. Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartikeya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mitesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This petition is filed by State of Rajasthan seeking quashing of orders dated 27.03.2004 and 06.07.2011 passed by the Collector Stamps and Tax Board respectively. 2. The brief facts are that the dispute in this petition is with regard to registration of a transaction of immovable property between respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4 with regard to sale of 1.01 hectares of land situated in khasra No.926/2 in Gram Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. A reference was [2025:RJ-JP:13892-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13480/2012] made at the instance of the respondent No.1 and the Collector vide order dated 27.03.2004 allowed the reference evaluating the property at Rs.10,10,001/- and the stamp duty payable was calculated at Rs.55,555/-. Aggrieved of the order, State filed a revision which was dismissed by the Tax Board vide order dated 06.07.2011, hence, the present petition. 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that the valuation is proper and based upon the documents and evidence produced. 5. 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. 7. 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. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/7 Reportable: Yes