- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the Division Bench decision in the case of Basant Nahata Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) WLN 226, wherein inter - alia, the impugned Notification No.F.2(16) FD/Tax/Div./99 -196 dated 26.03.1999 has been quashed by the the Division Bench of this Court as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said Notification required deposition of 60% of the stamp duty on the basis of valuation made as per the said Notification dated 26.03.1999, as a condition precedent for registration of the said document. The relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment in the aforesaid case is quoted hereunder for ready reference: - "5. Vide one Notification No.F.2(16) FD/Tax/Div./99 -196 (Annexure/6) dated 26.03.1999 as amended by Notification (Annexure/7) dated 22.4.1999, the Power of Attorneys conferring power of sale or transfer of property by any other mode, if any, the property situated outside the District where the Power of Attorney is presented for registration and if executed in favour of any person other than brother, sister, son, daughter, father, mother, husband and wife, have been declared as documents opposed to public policy under Sec.22 -A of the Act and the Registering Authority are ordered not to register such instruments. This declaration, it is submitted, is absolutely arbitrary and void because classification of authorisation through Power of Attorney on the basis of the properties and its situation has no rational nexus the object sought to be achieved through prohibition of registration of such documents. The fact that the property is situated within the District or outside the District has no rationale relating to the object to be achieved by the Notification. As per this Notification, the Power of Attorney executed in favour of any person within the District in which the Power of Attorney is executed may be given to any person who is not a relation referred to in the Notification dated 22.4.1999 but a Power of Attorney for the transfer for the property situated outside the District is accepted for registration only if it is made in favour of relations of the executant of the Power of Attorney referred therein. The Notification is, therefore, arbitrary and offends Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and is void. Similarly, it is submitted that the Notification No. F.2 (2) FD/Tax Division/99 -189 (Annexure/3) dated 1.4.1999 as amended by Notification No.F.2/FD/Tax.Div/99 -213 dated 22.4.1999 (Annexure/4) is also arbitrary. In the absence of any substantive provisions of law limiting the life of any power of attorney to be a period of three years, registration of such instrument without limiting the period of life of power of attorney is declared to be opposed to public policy. The classification between the document in which the period for the exercise of the power is limited to a period of 3 years, has no relation to the object to be ace hived and, therefore, is void and unreasonable."
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that two such writ petitions have already been disposed of by this Court in terms of Division Bench decision in the case of Basant Nahata (supra), being SBCWP No.624/2002 - Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. and SBCWP No.475/2002 - Raj Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. For the purposes of ready reference, the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of petitioner -herself, is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "The learned counsel for the parties submit ad idem that the impugned orders as passed by the Sub - Registrar on 06.05.2000 and by the Appellate Authority on 08.03.2001 cannot be sustained essentially for the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Basant Nahata Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: 2001 (1) WLN 226. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that similar nature petition has been allowed with the following order: - "Both the learned counsel submit that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Basant Nahata Vs. State of Rajasthan report in 2001 (1) WLN -226. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in terms of the aforesaid order." In view of the above; and in terms of the said judgment in Basant Nahata's case (supra), the impugned orders are set aside and the matter shall stand restored for reconsideration of the authority concerned in accordance with law. No costs." In view of mutual agreement of the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the aforesaid decision cited at bar, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.;