[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2883/2002 1. Kishore Kumar Bhargava (deceased) through legal representative :- 1/1. Abhishekh Bhargava son of late Kishore Kumar Bhargava, resident of 353, Vaishali Marg, Queens Road, Jaipur. 1/2. Rajesh Kumar Bhargava son of Shri Gopal Narain Bhargava, resident of 353, Vaishali Marg, Queens Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Assistant Director, Department of Land & Building Tax, Chandpole Zone, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA JUDGMENT 07/03/2026 1. It is an old case of the year 2002. It appears that the lawyers have decided to abstain from the work on the basis of illegal demand of the Bar Association asking lawyers to abstain from work on working Saturdays. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that they had taken the premises on rent from the owners of the property Karim Manzil, M.I. Road, Jaipur @ Rs.2,300/- per month on 01.07.1988. A lease deed was executed for 20 years and the same continues. [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (2 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] 3. The Assistant Director, Department of Land & Building Tax issued a notice to the petitioners for assessment of land & building tax under the Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act of 1964’). The petitioners were asked to appear personally, however, they refused to appear and sent an application for adjourning of the case. Considering the end of the financial year, the respondents proceeded to pass the order of demand of tax of Rs.2,01,280/-. 4. It is mentioned in the petition that along with the order, no information was conveyed with regard to the basis for passing the order and the information collected under Section 9 or Section 22 of the Act of 1964, the petitioners have mentioned that they are the tenants and not the owners of the property and the terms of the lease deed cannot be read as against them for the purpose of demanding the land and building tax. It is also mentioned in the petition that out of 4 landlords, 3 landlords had already deposited their share of the land and building tax. 5. A letter has also been placed on record with regard to assurance given by the land owner that he would deposit the amount of land and building tax but he has not deposited the same. The petitioners have also challenged the notice on the ground that the same is a composit order-notice of demand for two years, i.e., 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 15A(4) of the Act of 1964. 6. This Court while issuing notices on 08.05.2002 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 15.03.2002. On 04.07.2006, no one was present and the Court dismissed the [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (3 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] writ-petition in default. The same was restored on 25.07.2006. The Deputy Government Advocate prayed for time to file reply on 07.11.2006 but we find that till date, the reply has not been filed. On 09.04.2007, the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was continued. 7. We find that even as of today, no reply has been filed. No one appears for the Department even as on today. 8. The Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 provides the definition of word “owner” in Section 2(10) of the Act as under: "Owner: in respect of any [land or building] or portion thereof, includes the person, who for the time being receives, or who would be entitled to receive, the rent thereof, if the same were let, and includes- (a) an agent or trustee who receives such rent on account of the owner; (b) an agent or trustee who receives the rent of, or is entrusted with the management of, any [land or building] devoted to religious or charitable purpose; (c) a receiver, sequestrator or manager appointed by any court, competent jurisdiction to have the charge, or to exercise the rights of the owner, of the [land or building] or portion thereof; and (d) the mortgagees in possession thereof: Provided that in the case of [land or building] owned by the State Government, the lessee or grantee thereof from the State Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the owner of the [land or building] as the case may be: Provided further that in the case of [land or building] held on lease for a term not less than [twenty years], the lessee shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the owner of such [land or building.” [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (4 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] 9. Section 2(8) of the Act defines the definition of “occupier” as under : "Occupier: means the person in actual occupation or use of the [land or building] or a portion thereof, in respect of which the tax is payable, and includes- (a) the owner in occupation; (b) the tenant who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay rent in respect thereof to the owner; (c) the rent-free tenant or licensee thereof; and (d) the person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for unauthorized use and occupation thereof.” 10. Section 3 of the Act of 1964 that lays down the manner of levying of lands and buildings tax is reproduced as under : “(1) There shall be levied and collected with effect on and from 1st April, 1973, for each year a tax on lands and buildings situate in an urban area (hereinafter referred to as Lands and Buildings Tax), from the owner of such lands and buildings, at such rate not exceeding 2% of the market value thereof as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare in this behalf : Provided that the State Government may fix graduated rates of tax on different slabs of market values of urban lands and buildings: Provided further that until a notification declaring rate of tax is issued under this subsection, the rate of tax on lands and buildings shall be as follows:- On the first Rs. 1,00,000/- of the market Nil Value of the land and building. On the next Rs.2,00,000/- of the market ½% value of the land and building. On the next Rs.7,00,000/- of the market 1% value of the land and building. On the balance of the market value of the ₁½% land and building in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- Provided further that with effect on and from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act No. 14 of 1995) no tax shall be levied and collected on lands and buildings situate in an urban area having a [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (5 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] population of less than one and a half lakh according to the latest census figures: Provided further that if any area is declared a cantonment, or is constituted a Municipality, after the commencement of the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973, the tax on lands and buildings situate in such area shall be levied and collected with effect from the commencement of the year following the year during which the area is declared a cantonment or is constituted a Municipality. [x x x] (1-A) For removal of doubt it is declared that the tax shall be levied on land or building or both separately as units. (1-B) (a) An Assessee may pay one-time-tax in lieu of the tax payable for each year under sub-section(1): [xxx] (b) The one-time-tax shall be the amount of tax arrived at after multiplying the amount of yearly tax, assessed and levied under the provisions of this Act, by the calculation factor, not exceeding ten, to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette, from time to time. (c) Where any building, on which one-time-tax has been paid, is so rebuilt or enlarged as to make the asses see liable to pay an enhanced or additional amount of tax under this Act, the asses see shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to pay the amount of enhanced or additional yearly tax or one-time-tax. [xxx] (2) The tax shall be in addition to any other tax for the time being payable in respect of the land and building or portion thereof under any other law for the time being in force.” 11. As per Section 7 of the Act of 1964, the owner of the land or building is liable to submit return. However, the assessment can be made by the Assessing Authority by following procedures under Section 11 of the Act of 1964, where ever the owner of land or building has failed to furnish the return, the tax has to be determined on the basis of the market value. [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (6 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] 12. Section 15A of the Act of 1964 lays down the provisions as to how the tax and penalty has to be realized and as per Section 15A(4), a separate notice of demand is required to be served on the assessee. Section 15A of the Act of 1964 is reproduced herein below : “15A. Realisation of tax and penalty.-(1) After the assessment of the market value and determination of the amount of tax under sections 10, 11, 13, 15 or 15-B, the prescribed officer shall cause a notice of demand to be served on the assessee. Such notice shall specify the amount of tax payable by the assessee and shall contain such other particulars as may be prescribed. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall call upon the assessee to pay the tax specified therein within such time and subject to such conditions in such installments as may be prescribed. (3) In default of the payment of tax payable under sub-section (2) or of penalty under section 16-A or 17, the amount of tax or penalty [including interest under section 17-A] shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (4) In respect of the tax payable for each year a separate notice of demand shall be served on the assessee. (5) If no assessment has been made under section 10, 11 or 13 the owner shall continue to pay the amount of tax due according to the return under section 7 or 13 for every year in advance on or before the last day of June or at his option, in two equal installments payable on or before the last day of June and December until assessment is made.” [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (7 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] 13. Section 15D of the Act of 1964, which is relevant for the present purpose, provides that recovery of tax from occupier can be made in certain cases as under : “(1) Where the owner of any land or building is himself not the occupier thereof and is in default of payment of the tax, such tax may be recovered in the manner prescribed from the occupier out of the rent or other sum which has or may fail due to the owner in respect of such land or building. (2) Any occupier who has paid the tax under sub-section (1) shall be entitled to deduct the amount so paid from the amount of rent or any other sum payable from time to time to the owner.” 14. The petitioners before us would come within the definition of “occupier” and the grounds which have been raised would not be available to an occupier to contest, as he cannot step into the shoes of the owner. Of course, once a tax has been imposed, the occupier can always take steps for recovery of the same from the owner, as laid down under Section 15D(2) of the Act of 1964. 15. Having noticed the aforesaid provisions, we are of the firm view that the order of demand cannot be quashed solely on the ground that notice has not been given to the occupier, since the notices have to be originally sent to the concerned owner who admittedly has failed to deposit the tax, the recovery is being affected from the occupier who would be liable to pay the amount. 16. In view thereto, we dismiss the present writ petition and vacate the stay granted by this Court and direct the petitioners to deposit the land and building tax as demanded along with interest @12% per annum. [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (8 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] 17. We, however, refrain from imposing any penalty considering that this Court had passed the stay order. 18. The Department shall be free to recover the amount from the present writ petitioners who are the Lrs of the deceased. 19. At the same time, it would be open for the petitioners to recover the amount by adjusting the said amount from the rent in terms of Section 15D(2) (supra). The law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the Judgment of “Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal”, (2020) 8 SCC 129, wherein the Court has held as under: “325. In Karnataka Rare Earth v. Deptt. of Mines & Geology [Karnataka Rare Earth v. Deptt. of Mines & Geology, (2004) 2 SCC 783], this Court observed that maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit requires that the party should be placed in the same position but for the court's order which is ultimately found to be not sustainable which has resulted in one party gaining advantage which otherwise would not have earned and the other party has suffered but for the orders of the court. The successful party can demand the delivery of benefit earned by the other party, or make restitution for what it has lost. This Court observed : 10. In … the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and held that the doctrine was not confined in its application only to such acts of the court which were erroneous; the doctrine is applicable to all such acts as to which it can be held that the court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts [2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (9 of 9) [CW-2883/2002] and the law. It is the principle of restitution that is attracted. When on account of an act of the party, persuading the court to pass an order, which at the end is held as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered, but for the order of the court and the act of such party, then the successful party finally held entitled to a relief, assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated in the same manner in which the parties would have been if the interim order of the court would not have been passed. The successful party can demand : (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost.” 20. The present Civil Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations. 21. All pending applications stand disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/1