1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 283 of 2009 PRESIDENT, GYAN ARADHNA TRUST, PALI V/S STATE OF RAJ. & ORS Mr. MD PUROHIT, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.K.GODARA, for the appellant. Date of Order : 9.3.2009 HON'BLE SHRI DEEPAK VERMA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard on admission. Record perused. Unsuccessful petitioner of Writ Petition No. 817/2009 decided by learned Single Judge on 4.2.2009 is before us in this writ appeal. Factual matrix of the case lies as under:- Appellant-Trust felt need of some open land for being used by Jain Saints and Sadhvis. It accordingly decided to purchase an open piece of land ad-measuring 15137.5 sq. ft. out of 5 bighas of Khasra No. 911/2 of Town Pali belonging to respondent no. 3 herein. Even though in the sale deed it was averred that it is an agricultural land on the said ground which was purchased for a sumof Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2 The Sub Registrar, Pali treated said plot as residential plot falling in Abadi area and determined the value of plot as per the rates prescribed by District Level Committee. The document was accordingly not registered and reference was made to the Collector (Stamps) Pali under Section 47-A(1) and 52 of the Indian Stamps Act. The Sub Registrar determined the market value of the land in question to be at Rs. 35,69,313/- including the cost of iron gates etc. and wall and requested the Collector (Stamps) to finally fix the value of land purchased by appellant herein at the aforesaid rates. Notice of the reference was issued to the appellant and it submitted its detailed reply. It has not been disputed that even that land has been recorded as an agricultural land but no agricultural operations are being carried on in it. The D.L.C. has assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 235/- sq. ft. Against this order, the appellant went in revision till to Board of Revenue but the order of Collector (Stamps) was confirmed at all stages, against which a writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that against such finding of fact no case for interference was made out. After having heard learned counsel for appellant 3 and after perusal of the record we are of the opinion that against such an order no case for interference is made out. (See AIR 1993 SC-2585 Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. (DEEPAK VERMA),CJ. /Sushil/