M/S SHRI SHYAM BUILD STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/3803/2026 · 2026-03-24
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Shubha Mehta
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6340 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6340 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3803/2026 M/s Shri Shyam Build Structure Private Limited, Through Director Shri Vinod Kumar Jalan Aged About 64 Years, Having Registered Office At Shop No. 7, Diwan Market, Sikar- 332001 Presently At Shop No. 7 Diwan Market Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Sub- Registrar, Jaipur-V, Jaipur City, (Raj.)
2. The Collector (Stamp), Jaipur Circle-1St, Collectorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Sanjay Gupta Son Of Shri Narayan Dutt Gupta, Resident Of Station Road, Alwar, Rajasthan. And Ramchand Yadav Son Of Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Resident Of Ladpur, Tehsil Bansur, Alwar. 4. Someshwar Gupta Son Of Shri Makran Gupta, Resident Of Plot No. 121, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assist by Mr. Rahul Kamwar Mr. Madhav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Mr. Priyam Agarwal Mr. Deepak Mittal HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/03/2026
1. Admittedly the revision lies in terms of Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 against the order passed by the Collector (stamp). We have held in writ petition No. 3934/2026 Kundan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan that the remedy of
(2 of 2) [CW-3803/2026] revision/appeal before the statutory appellate authority provided under the act, would be more efficacious and scope of examining the factual aspect is much larger in revision than in comparison to writ petition. 2. Taking into consideration the facts which are on record, we find that there are several factual aspects which the petitioner dispute. The petitioner also submits that the agreement to sale stood already cancelled. These aspects would therefore have to be examined by the revisional authority. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the sale deed was ready to be executed but the same could not be, on account of police intervention. 4. Be that as it may, this aspect can be examined with all the other facts by the revisional authority, if the revision be filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days henceforth, the revisional authority, is directed to decide the revision positively within a period of three months thereafter. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the present civil writ petition stands disposed of. 6. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ ashu /11