- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11 petitioners claiming themselves to be social activist approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation. The petitioners claimed that they have no personal interest vested in bringing the present petition before this court. The petitioners' grievance is that respondents which includes the State itself and its various functionaries with an oblique motive to grant undue benefits to certain land holders and property dealers decided to increase the land valuation (which are known as DLC rates) under purported power given by Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2004). According to2 the petitioners on earlier occasions, the District Level Committee constituted under the Rules of 2004 assessed the land valuation of the area on the basis of the genuine documents and, therefore, the land valuation was increased upto 10% only and in support of this plea the petitioners placed on record the copies of the rate fixed by the District Level Committee on earlier occasion. The petitioners' contention is that now on 3 rd July, 2009 a meeting of District Level Committee was convened wherein a decision was taken to increase the property valuation by 200 to 300% after relying upon some of the documents/sale deeds which are not genuine and which were created for getting the increase in the DLC rates so that in case land is acquired for a scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board then the land holders of that area may get huge compensation on acquisition of their land. The petitioners then submitted that action of the respondents was protested by the public at large and several representations were submitted to the Chairman of the District Level Committee and further several news items were published in the newspapers and some of which were of 14 th July, 2009, 18 th July, 2009 and 21 st July, 2009. On the basis of the above facts the petitioners preferred this writ petition praying for quashing of the resolution dated 3.4.2009 and revision of DLC rates and for quashing of standing order (SO 118) dated 8 th July, 20093 issued by the State Government with further relief of direction against the respondents to re-assess the market value of the properties within the parameters but not beyond 5% of the existing rate fixed in the schedule. The respondent-State submitted detailed reply and placed on record several documents. The respondent's contention is that the petitioners nos. 1,2,5,6,8,9 and 11 are the property dealers, whereas the petitioners nos. 3 and 7 are deed writers and petitioner no.5 is colonizer and they filed this writ petition for their own personal benefit under the garb of public interest litigation. The respondent submitted that the writ petition of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners have suppressed material and important facts and tried to mislead this Court by projecting this petition as public interest litigation and because of the reason of false statements made by the petitioners that they do not have any personal interest in the present litigation. The respondents also justified the rates fixed by the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 3/4 th July, 2009 and also justified the standing order dated 8 th July, 2009.
(2.) After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners deliberately stated wrong facts in the writ petition that they have no personal interest in this litigation and the present4 petition is public interest litigation. Voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Annex.R/1 and R/2 clearly reveal that petitioners are engaged in property dealing in the area concerned for which land valuation has been assessed by the District Level Committee. The petitioners even did not choose to dispute the correctness of the Annex.R/1 wherein the involvement of the petitioners in several property transactions have been shown. The petitioners submitted a rejoinder to the reply of the State and in para no.1 admitted the fact that they are engaged in land/property dealings in this manner ....However, the petitioners are not only engaged in business, profession and work as alleged by the respondents, but also, the petitioners are vigilant person of the society..... . However, the petitioners in the same para contradicted their own stand, referred above by stating .....Therefore, the allegation levelled against the petitioners with regard to vested interest for the various reasons are completely voiced from ulterior motive and are incorrect... Even otherwise the petitioners' mere denial of facts disclosed by the respondent in reply to writ petition is no denial in the eye of law and in that situation this mere denial of fact amounts to admission of fact as per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badat & Co., Bombay Vs. East India Trading Co, 1964 AIR(SC) 538 held that evasive or vague denial of facts in written statement may be taken as the fact5 has been admitted. The petitioners who had personal knowledge of their own business and profession vaguely pretended to deny the allegations and in fact, admitted the fact as stated by the respondents in the reply and then tried to improve their stand by saying that ....cause is not only confine to only the petitioners but also entitling its an public issue.... By this stand, the petitioners admitted that the cause has been espoused by them for their own benefit and by this they proved that their plea in the writ petition that they have no personal interest in the present litigation, is totally false statement of fact. In view of the above reasons, the present writ petition is Paisa (business) interest litigation and not public interest litigation and is liable to be dismissed only on this count.
(3.) Apart from above, the plea raised by the petitioners in the writ petition that the DLC rates have been increased by the District Level Committee so that the enhanced compensation may be given to the land owners in case the land is acquired by the State Government for any public purpose is concerned, for that plea there is no factual foundation. The petitioners failed to show any collusion of all the members of the committee with the land owners whose land is liable to be acquired by the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP & Ors, 1994 4 SCC 595 wherein after considering6 the Section 47A of the Stamps Act it is has been held that the rates given in the in the basic valuation register (as DLC rates in Rajasthan) cannot be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the land acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. In another case delivered in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) & Anr, 1995 1 SCC 717 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the the basic valuation register is maintained by the municipalities (in Andra Pradesh) on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, which cannot form the basis for determination of market value of the land under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In yet another case delivered in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Mohabir Singh & Ors, 1996 1 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where the Sub-Registrar formed his opinion merely on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government obviously of fixing the rates under Section 47A of the Stamps Act directed the executant of the document to revise the instrument and fix the consideration for the purpose of stamp duty as per the rate fixed under Section 47A., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines provided by the State would only serve as prima faice material available before the Registering Authority to alert him regarding the value of the property and no absolute7 higher or minimum value can be predetermined and it would dependent on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the instrument is situated. It would be only on objective satisfaction that the authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued when it is presented for registration. The ultimate decision would be with the Collector subject to the decision on an appeal before the District Court as provided under subsection (4) of Section 47A. From the above it is clear that one cannot claim the compensation for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act merely on the basis of the rate assessed by the District Level Committees.;