- (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Constitutional Validity of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short "the Rules of 2004"). A further challenge is made to the order dated 02.08.2005. A prayer is also made to restrain the respondents to prosecute the petitioner in pursuance to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short "the Act of 1998").
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 is in conflict with Section 51 of the Act of 1998. As and when any instrument is submitted for registration and registering officer has reason to doubt about valuation of the land, it can be determined by the procedure given under Section 51 of the Act of 1998. It provides for registration of the document on the value disclosed therein. If the Registering Officer has reasons to believe that the market value of the property is not truly disclosed then it can send the document in original, prior or subsequent to registration, to the Collector for taking action. The procedure has been given under sub-Section (3) and (5) of Section 51 of the Act of 1998. As per the aforesaid provision, determination of market value of the property can be made by the Collector. As against the aforesaid, Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 gives authority to the Registering Officer to determine the value of the property on the rate determined by District Level Committee (DLC). The provision aforesaid was legislated in ignorance of Section 51 of the Act of 1998 thus, deserves to be struck down.
(3.) It is further submitted that a similar issue came up before this court for consideration though it was in reference to Central Legislation similar to what has been challenged herein. The similar provision was struck down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Satyam Properties v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in RLR 2002(2) 722. However, on an appeal before the Apex Court by the State of Rajasthan, the theory of reading down was applied for taking harmonious interpretation of the two provisions. It was with the observation that it would not be necessary for the Registering Officer to apply DLC rate rather, in an appropriate case, he can disagree with the market rate determined by the District Level Committee and refer the matter to the Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short "the Act of 1899"). The prayer is accordingly made to apply the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Satyam Properties decided on 29.07.2010 in Civil Appeal No.3671-3684/2003.;