SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE question emerges for consideration in the instant appeal is - Whether a person, who has received benefit under a Notification, is entitled to challenge its constitutional validity?
(2.) THE respondents in this appeal filed writ petition challenging the Notification dated March 14, 1997, issued by the State of Rajasthan, appellant herein, under Section 78 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') as ultravires and for the refund of the amount of Rs. 10,24,280/ - recovered from the respondents as registration charges vide receipt dated May 15, 1997. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated December 10, 1999, which is under challenge in this appeal. The respondents participated in auction -sale of building known as 'Food Catering Institute Building', MI Road Jaipur. The highest bid of the respondents was accepted and sale was confirmed by the State on December 14, 1996. The respondents deposited consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 10,24,27,732/ - and the sale -deed for execution was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar -II and registration charges in the sum of Rs. 10,24,280/ - were paid by the respondents. On August 18, 1998 the respondents filed writ petition challenging the validity of notification dated March 14, 1997 and claimed refund of Rs. 10,24,280/ - paid by the respondents as registration charges.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge in the impugned order held that Notification dated March 14, 1997 was not in consonance with the service to be rendered on registering documents. Since levy @ 1% could not be related to the element of quid pro quo it was arbitrary. Learned Single Judge while quashing Notification directed to refund registration charges, after adjustment of Rs. 5000/ - maximum registration fee as per earlier Notification dated March 7, 1994.;