ARUN KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE point for consideration in this batch of appeals is the validity of Rule 59 -B of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts necessary for appreciating the controversy involved in these appeals are that the appellants purchased certain plots of land vide sale deeds executed by the vendors in their favour between 20th Sept., 1995 to 9th Jan., 1996. The sale deeds were stamped as per the consideration declared therein and they were submitted for registration before the authorities. The question about correct valuation of the sale deeds for the purpose of stamp duty arose for consideration. Following the decision of the District Level Committee, the Collector valued the properties at a rate more than what was disclosed as consideration in the sale deeds and issued notices for recovery of the balance amount of stamp duty. The appellants challenged the decision of the Collector about the enhancement in the valuation of the properties as well as the notices for payment of additional stamp duty by way of writ petitions filed in this court. Out of total number of 14 writ petitions, one writ petition was decided on merits while the remaining 13 writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of limitation. The appellants have filed these 14 appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing all the 14 writ petitions. We have been taken through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge proceeded on an entirely different basis while deciding the petition on merits, thereby over -looking the real question in controversy. Secondly, we also feel that when the question involved in all these cases was same and it was purely a legal question which was being decided on merits in one of the writ petitions, the remaining petitions need not have been dismissed on the ground of delay specially when the aspect of delay was common to all the cases. The decision on the law point covers all the cases. It was wholly uncalled for to dismiss the remaining cases on the ground of limitation. So far as the decision of the learned Single Judge on merits in one of the petitions is concerned, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Our reasons for this are as under.
(3.) SECTION 47 -A of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1899, as adopted in the State of Rajasthan lays down the procedure regarding valuation of documents. Under Sub -section (1), if the registering officer finds that a document presented for registration before him has not been properly valued, he is authorised to refer it to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the stamp duty is to be charged accordingly. Under Sub -section (2) of Section 47 -A of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1899, the procedure has been prescribed for determination of the market value by the Collector. Sub -section (2) is reproduced as under: (2) On receipt of the instrument Under Sub -section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner determine the market value and the duty including the penalty and surcharge, if any payable thereon, and if the amount of duty paid, the deficient amount shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty including penalty and surcharge, if any. ;