1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3343/2000. : : Smt. Sudha Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 21.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. G. C. Saini for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Prayer for adjournment is made. Petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the order dated 8.1.1999 whereby an agreement presented by petitioners for purchase of a flat was held to be conveyance and the Additional Collector held that said agreement would be deemed conveyance under Second Schedule to Article (1) read with Section 33 (5) of Stamps Act and required the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.62,115/- as stamp duty. Petitioners have raised various arguments including the argument that State of Rajasthan has amended Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 thereby authorising the authorities by virtue of insertion of Rule 66 (c) of Rajasthan Stamps Rules, 1955 coupled with the provisions of Section 2 27, 62, 64 and 65 of Stamp Act read with Section 17 of Registration Act to charge the duty on the agreements of sale in an illegal manner. It is contended that the rules framed in this behalf are ultra vires of the Act and are not biding upon the petitioners. On merits, it is argued that a perusal of agreement would go to show that petitioners' ancestors have purchased the land through an agreement and raised the construction by investing their own money and thus the agreement was only in respect of the purchase of land and constructions were raised by their own money. Respondents have contested the writ petition on merits, but have also submitted that order passed by Additional Collector under Section 66 (c) of the Act could not be directly challenged before this Court as a revision petition against such order lies before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Rule 27 of the said Rules. Rule 66 mentioned above provides for the procedure of reference about non-registration of documents, which are required to be registered and not regularized with a view to avoiding stamp duty. It provides that after service of notice where the instrument in question is presented before the Collector, he shall proceed as provided by Section 47-A and/or 47-C of the Act as the case may be and if 3 party/parties do not present the instrument and/or appear before the Collector to refute the presumption of the information in question being correct, the Collector shall proceed. Whether or not the ex-parte order was passed against the petitioners on merit, shall have to be, therefore, first examined by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable in view of alternative remedy available to petitioners and with liberty to petitioners to approach such authority within a period of three months days from now. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.H/29.