Honble SHETHNA, J.–In this group of petitions, though separate notices issued for the plots in question by the respondents are challenged, but the parties are the same and the points raised in these petitions are also same, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2). Before dealing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners in all these cases, I must state few important facts, which are as under:-

``(i) The petitioner-Satyam Properties is the sole petitioner in all these petitions.

(ii) The petitioner in all these petitions has challenged the impugned notice dated 18.11.1997 (Annex.6) issued by the respondent no.2, Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount assessed, failing which the proceedings for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue be initiated against it. And, also the order dated 26/27.11.97 (Annex.7) issued by the Tehsildar, Bhilwara calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount in addition to other amount mentioned in the notice.

(iii) The plots in question is a part of big industrial property known as ``Duduwala Property in an industrial town of Bhilwara of State of Rajasthan.

(iv) Many cases were pending before the Calcutta High Court against the Dud- uwala & Company and the property of ``Duduwala & company consisting of big plot divided into sub plots of different measurements of 44x31, 44x44, and 44 ix 88 came to the share of Govinda Investiment, Bhilwara as per the order of Calcutta High Court dated 30.8.93.

(v) All the sub plots of main plot were purchased by the petitioner-Satyam Pro- perties from Govinda Investment under the registered sale deed of different dates (Annexure 1 in all the petitions). Annexure 2 is a map showing the sub plots in the main big plots.

(vi) The Registering Authority in all these cases was of the opinion that the consideration mentioned in instrument of transfers of plots in question was less than the rates fixed by the District Level Committee and as per the rate fixed by the committee the value was running into lacs of rupees and, therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay the amount of stamp duty on the value assessed. However, the petitioner did not pay the due proposed by the Registering Authority, therefore, the matter was referred to the Collector (stamps) for determination of the market value of the plots in question under Section 47 A (ii) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the ``Act).

(vii) The petitioner filed reply in each case to the notice issued against it contending that there was no basis for the Registering Authority to treat the plots in question as commercial and to value it accordingly. The Collector (stamps) by his order valued the property in lacs and directed the petitioner to deposit the difference of amount in the stamp duty in lacs of rupees as per the measurement of the plots and also to pay the registration charges and penalty. The Collector passed the order on different dates. His impugned orders calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference amount in stamp duty, registration charges and penalty is Annex.5 in all these petitions.

Thereafter, the respondent no.2, Collector (stamps) issued notice on 18.11.1997 (Annex.6) in all the cases directing the petitioner to deposit the amount assessed or proceedings will be initiated for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue.

(viii) The Tehsildar, Bhilwara by his order dated 26/27.11.97 (Annex.7) in turn issued notice in all the cases to the petitioner to deposit the amount in addition to the other amounts mentioned in the notice.

(3). According to the averments made in para no.8 by the petitioner in all these petitions that now the respondents are proceeding to effect the recovery of the am- ount by coercive process under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

(4). It must be stated that though the impugned orders at Annex.5 was passed by the Collector (stamps) in all the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document