[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2883/2002

1. Kishore Kumar Bhargava (deceased) through legal representative :-

1/1. Abhishekh Bhargava son of late Kishore Kumar Bhargava, resident of 353, Vaishali Marg, Queens Road, Jaipur.

1/2. Rajesh Kumar Bhargava son of Shri Gopal Narain Bhargava, resident of 353, Vaishali Marg, Queens Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Assistant Director, Department of Land & Building Tax, Chandpole Zone, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

JUDGMENT

07/03/2026

1. It is an old case of the year 2002. It appears that the lawyers have decided to abstain from the work on the basis of illegal demand of the Bar Association asking lawyers to abstain from work on working Saturdays.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that they had taken the premises on rent from the owners of the property Karim Manzil, M.I. Road, Jaipur @ Rs.2,300/- per month on 01.07.1988. A lease deed was executed for 20 years and the same continues.

3. The Assistant Director, Department of Land & Building Tax issued a notice to the petitioners for assessment of land & building tax under the Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act of 1964’). The petitioners were asked to appear personally, however, they refused to appear and sent an application for adjourning of the case. Considering the end of the financial year, the respondents proceeded to pass the order of demand of tax of Rs.2,01,280/-.

4. It is mentioned in the petition that along with the order, no information was conveyed with regard to the basis for passing the order and the information collected under Section 9 or Section 22 of the Act of 1964, the petitioners have mentioned that they are the tenants and not the owners of the property and the terms of the lease deed cannot be read as against them for the purpose of demanding the land and building tax. It is also mentioned in the petition that out of 4 landlords, 3 landlords had already deposited their share of the land and building tax.

5. A letter has also been placed on record with regard to assurance given by the land owner that he would deposit the amount of land and building tax but he has not deposited the same. The petitioners have also challenged the notice on the ground that the same is a composit order-notice of demand for two years, i.e., 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 15A(4) of the Act of 1964.

6. This Court while issuing notices on 08.05.2002 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 15.03.2002. On 04.07.2006, no one was present and the Court dismissed the writ-petition in default. The same was restored on 25.07.2006. The Deputy Government Advocate prayed for time to file reply on 07.11.2006 but we find that till date, the reply has not been filed. On 09.04.2007, the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was continued.

7. We find that even as of today, no reply has been filed. No one appears for the Department even as on today.

8. The Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964 provides the definition of word “owner” in Section 2(10) of the Act as under:

"Owner: in respect of any [land or building] or portion thereof, includes the person, who for the time being receives, or who would be entitled to receive, the rent thereof, if the same were let, and includes-

(a) an agent or trustee who receives such rent on account of the owner;

(b) an agent or trustee who receives the rent of, or is entrusted with the management of, any [land or building] devoted to religious or charitable purpose; (c) a receiver, sequestrator or manager appointed by any court, competent jurisdiction to have the charge, or to exercise the rights of the own