Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves a suit for declaration and consequential injunction regarding immovable property, which falls under Section 24(b) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. The court fee should be computed on one-half of the market value of the property, with a minimum fee of twenty rupees (!) (!) .

2. The determination of the market value for such suits is governed by Section 7(2) of the Act, which prescribes that the market value is to be calculated as twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement, or for similar land in the neighborhood if rent has not been settled (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court below initially decided the market value based on the DLC rate, which is not in accordance with the statutory mode of calculation prescribed by Section 7(2) of the Act. Therefore, this order is subject to being set aside (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The plea of concealment of relevant order is not sustainable, as the pleadings made by the counsel indicate awareness of the dispute and the applicable provisions (!) .

5. The court emphasizes that the statute itself prescribes the method for determining market value, and any deviation from this method, such as using DLC rates, is not legally sustainable (!) (!) (!) .

6. The petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the court below is directed to determine the market value strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance.