Availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, precludes the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the courts.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 31.03.2014 passed in Case No. 267/2014 titled as State (through Sub-Registrar, Jaipur-4) vs. Alok Agarwal & Anr. whereby stamp duty of Rs. 6,15,93,340/-along with surcharge of Rs. 61,59,340/-and penalty of Rs. 22,47,320/-totaling Rs.7,00,00,000 (7 crores) has been raised against the petitioner.

2. The concise and ineluctable factual matrix, necessary for discerning the issue at hand, is noted herein-under:-

2.1. That the petitioner is the owner of agricultural land comprising an area of 9 Bighas and 11 Biswas.

2.2. That on 07.06.2010, qua the said land, the petitioner entered into a ‘development agreement’ with a company namely, M/s. Sunny Arcade Private Ltd.

2.3. That the said agreement was divided into two distinct parts. The first part of the agreement provided that the developer would furnish a security deposit of Rs. 2 crores in favour of the petitioner by way of post-dated cheques (PDCs). Moreover, the developer would also initiate and complete proceedings under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act along with getting the land use of the said property changed and thereafter, obtain the patta of the total land within a period of 24 months from the date of signing of the said agreement. It was only upon successfully completing the aforementioned requisites, that the approval of construction would be granted. In essence, the agreement stipulated that if the preceding tasks, as noted above, were not duly carried out within a period of 24 months, then in such an eventuality, the agreement as entered between the parties, would be a nullity. Whereas, if the said tasks were carried out, then the agreement would be governed by the second part of the agreement, providing for the development and construction on the subject land.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though styled as a ‘development agreement’, the subject agreement was divided into two distinct parts, as noted above. Therefore, the said agreement in the first instance was not a development agreement, but an agreement divided into two parts wherein the fulfillment of the first part would effectuate or activate the second part, the latter wherein alone constituted the ‘development agreement’. Thus, in essence, the agreement was an agreement which was contingent and was to take effect in future and on happening of certain contingencies as no rights were meant to flow to the developer till the conditions of the first part were fulfilled. Accordingly, as the first part of the said agreement was not duly complied/completed within a period of 24 months as required, the agreement in toto was nullified, thereby, not giving rise to the second part, which in essence was the ‘development agreement’. The said agreement became null and void. Therefore, there was no requirement upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty, in the absence of any development and/or construction being carried out on the subject land/property. In support of the said agreement becoming a nullity, learned counsel submitted that even the cheques (PDCs) paid as security, were returned back to the developer, upon the lapse of the period of 24 months as provided in the first part of the agreement.

4. Furthermore, learned counsel argued that the order impugned dated 31.03.2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the Additional Collector (Stamps) did not consider the nature of the document/agreement which was in fact not a ‘development agreement’ covered under Article 5(bbbb) or 5(e) but an agreement otherwise covered under Article 5(c). Therefore, the liability to pay stamp duty has been incorrectly crystallized qua the petitioner, despite the agreement being a nullity. Lastly, learned counsel also averred that the remedy of revision available to the petitioner under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter, Act of 1998) is ineffective and illusory, especially on