Hon'ble TATIA, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. 11 petitioners claiming themselves to be social activist approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation. The petitioners claimed that they have no personal interest vested in bringing the present petition before this court. The petitioners' grievance is that respondents which includes the State itself and its various functionaries with an oblique motive to grant undue benefits to certain land holders and property dealers decided to increase the land valuation (which are known as DLC rates) under purported power given by Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2004). According to the petitioners on earlier occasions, the District Level Committee constituted under the Rules of 2004 assessed the land valuation of the area on the basis of the genuine documents and, therefore, the land valuation was increased upto 10% only and in support of this plea the petitioners placed on record the copies of the rate fixed by the District Level Committee on earlier occasion. The petitioners' contention is that now on 3rd July, 2009 a meeting of District Level Committee was convened wherein a decision was taken to increase the property valuation by 200 to 300% after relying upon some of the documents/sale deeds which are not genuine and which were created for getting the increase in the DLC rates so that in case land is acquired for a scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board then the land holders of that area may get huge compensation on acquisition of their land. The petitioners then submitted that action of the respondents was protested by the public at large and several representations were submitted to the Chairman of the District Level Committee and further several news items were published in the newspapers and some of which were of 14th July, 2009, 18th July, 2009 and 21st July, 2009.

3. On the basis of the above facts the petitioners preferred this writ petition praying for quashing of the resolution dated 3.4.2009 and revision of DLC rates and for quashing of standing order (SO 118) dated 8th July, 2009 issued by the State Government with further relief of direction against the respondents to re-assess the market value of the properties within the parameters but not beyond 5% of the existing rate fixed in the schedule.

4. The respondent-State submitted detailed reply and placed on record several documents. The respondent's contention is that the petitioners nos. 1,2,5,6,8,9 and 11 are the property dealers, whereas the petitioners nos. 3 and 7 are deed writers and petitioner no.5 is colonizer and they filed this writ petition for their own personal benefit under the garb of public interest litigation. The respondent submitted that the writ petition of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners have suppressed material and important facts and tried to mislead this Court by projecting this petition as public interest litigation and because of the reason of false statements made by the petitioners that they do not have any personal interest in the present litigation. The respondents also justified the rates fixed by the District Level Committee in its meeting dated 3/4th July, 2009 and also justified the standing order dated 8th July, 2009.

5. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners deliberately stated wrong facts in the writ petition that they have no personal interest in this litigation and the present petition is public interest litigation. Voluminous documentary evidence in the form of Annex.R/1 and R/2 clearly reveal that petitioners are engaged in property dealing in the area concerned for which land valuation has been assessed by the District Level Committee. The petitioners even did not choose to dispute the correctness of the Annex.R/1 whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document