IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Mrs.Zebun Malvea & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7462/2005) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: January 16, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Addl. GA for respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioners have challenged the order dated 13-6-2005 passed by the Collector (Stamps) Ajmer, whereby the learned Collector has dismissed the plea of petitioners that the document that they wished to have registered was a trust deed. Instead, the learned Collector has held the document to be an instrument of conveyance of immovable property. Thus, the stamp duty has been charged at the market value of the property. Hence, the petitioners have been directed to deposit a stamp duty of Rs.1,82,560/-, along with registration charges of Rs.22,820/- plus a penalty of Rs.100/-. Hence, they have been directed to deposit Rs.2,05,230/-. Therefore, this petition before this Court. 2. In a nutshell the case of the petitioners is that one J. Jacob, father of petitioners No.1 & 2 owned a property, namely AMC 144/10, Civil Lines Ajmer. After the death of Mr.Jacob the said property was inherited by petitioners No.1 & 2. The petitioners No.1 & 2 executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Narendra Kumar Jain. The power of attorney holder executed a trust deed on 4-12-2004 creating an irrevocable Trust with regard to 572 sq. yards of land which was lying in the back of the property mentioned above. The Trust so created was named as “Shri 1008 Shantinath Digambar Jain Dharmarth Trust”. The trust deed was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- as Article 56 of the IInd Schedule attached to Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998 (`the Act of 1998' for short) provides that the amount of stamp duty on a document declaring a trust shall not exceed Rs.60/-. While submitting the said document for registration, the requisite registration fees of Rs.150/- was also paid. However, the Sub-Registrar, Ajmer issued a notice, dated 19-2-2005, under section 47 (A1) of the Indian Stamp act 1899 to the petitioners. According to the said notice, the stamp duty payable was not in accordance with market value of the property. The Sub-Registrar had valued the property at Rs.20,81,887/-. Therefore, he directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,82,560/- as stamp duty. The petitioner No.3 submitted his objections. However, vide order dated 13-6-2005 the said objections were rejected and the Collector Stamps directed the payment of stamp duty as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. According to Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, the collector has misread the entire trust deed. The Collector has been swayed by the fact that trustees are members of the same family. Therefore, according to the Collector the formation of trust is merely a subterfuge for conveying a property. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Collector has ignored the fact that according to condition No.7 of the Trust deed the objects of the Trust are philanthropic and religious in nature. Moreover, according to condition No.6 of the trust deed, the trustees were denied the power to sell or mortgage the property that belongs to the Trust. It was in the absolute ownership of the Trust. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the document had merely contained “a declaration of the Trust and was concerning the property that belong to Trust”. Hence, the document falls under Article 56 of the IInd schedule attached to Act of 1998. According to Article 56, the stamp duty payable on “the declaration of a trust or concerning any property the duty payable would be the same duty as on a Bond (No.14) for a sum equal to the amount or value of the property concerned but not exceeding sixty rupees”. Hence, according to learned counsel, the collector has erred in reading the trust deed as a cleaver ploy for conveying a property. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Rastogi, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, has contended that under section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959 (`the Act of 1959' for short) an unregistered trust is not entitled to institute a suit. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, the trust has not been registered under the provisions of Act of 1959. Secondly, since the trustees are family members, therefore, the collector has rightly concluded that the property was being conveyed. Hence, the stamp duty is payable under Item 21 and not under Article 56 of the IInd Schedule of the Act. Hence, he has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled law that while interpreting a document, the document has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. Thus, the trust deed has to be read in an holistic manner. The object of the Trust has been laid down in condition No.7, which reads as under:- "7. यहिकइसून् यासकेिनम् निलिखतउƨेँ यहोंगे:- (1) यहिकून् यासकीवतर्मानतथाभिवं यमेंूाप् तहोनेवालीअचल सम् पित् तकाउपयोगिजनालयअथार्तजैनमंिदरधमर्शाला, ः कूल, मिहला आौम, वृƨाौम, औषधालयवऔषिधिनमार्ण, मुिनराज-त् यागी-वृितसेवा, सत-सािहत् यूकाशन, ूवचन, ः वाघ् यायआिदपारमािथर्ककायȾ केिलयेही िकयाजावेगा। (2) यहिक 108 आचायर्कुन् दकुन् दूणीतिदगम् बरजैनधमर्कीआम् न् यानुसार हीसमः तधािमर्कआयोजनोंकोकरनावकरवानाअथार्तसमः तधािमर्क कायर्बमतेरह-पंथआम् न् यानुसारहोंगे। (3) यहिकअिखलभारतवषȸय, ून् तीयः थानीयिदगम् बरजैनसमाजका सभीूकारसेसहयोगिकयाजावेगातथाइसीूकारहीसमानउƨेँ यवाली संः थाओसेसहयोगभीिलयाजासकेगा। (4) यहिकून् यासमंडलकाकायर्सुचाǾ Ǿपसेसंचालनकरनेहेतुतथा पदािधकाǐरयोंकेकत् तर्å यएवंदाियत् वों, सभाओंकेसंचालन, लेखापƨितएवं लेखावअन् यपुः तकोंकेरखरखाववअन् यआवँ यकबातोंकेसम् बन् धमें समयसमयपरिनयमअथवाूः तावपाǐरतकरसकेगालेिकनकोईिनयम अथवाूः तावउƨेँ योंवकानूनोंकेिवपरीतहोनेपरअमान् यहोगा। (5) यहिकून् यासिवलेखकीितिथसेउÈ तसम् पित् तकाः वािमत् वून् यास काहोगाऔरून् यासपऽकेिनं पादनकतार्अथवाउनकेउत् तरािधकारीका उÈ तसम् पित् तपरिकसीूकारकाकोईः वत् वएवंअिधकारनहींरहेगा।" 7. A bare perusal of the objects clearly reveals that the trust has been created for the the members of Digambar Jain Community and the property belonging to the Trust has to be used for various religious and charitable purposes. The Trust is also created to work with other charitable trusts run by Digambar Jain Community. According to condition No.7(5) the ownership of the properties belonging to Trust shall vest in the Trust and neither the trustees nor their representatives would have the right to claim ownership over the properties belonging to the Trust. According to condition No.6, neither the trustees nor the Trust will have the right to alienate the properties belonging to Trust. Thus, an irrevocable Trust has been created under the trust deed. Merely because the trustees happen to be from a single family, would not imply that the trust deed has been created to circumvent the liability with regard to payment of stamp duty. As such, the interpretation of the trust deed as given by the learned Collector is a cynical one. Such an interpretation is not based on any evidence. There is no requirement under law that in order to create a valid Trust, the trustees should belong to different families or should not be related to each other. Therefore, the learned Collector erred in concluding that the trust deed is merely a ploy for transferring the properties. The tenor of the document clearly shows that it is merely a declaration of a trust and concerns the property which vests in the Trust. 8. The objections raised by Mr.Rastogi with regard to non- maintainability of writ petition deserves to be rejected. Firstly the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction to challenge the order passed by a quasi-judicial authority. The writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been provided for the protection of civil and/ or fundamental rights of the people. Therefore, the embargo contained in section 29 of Act of 1959 cannot prevent a person from invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The power of judicial review has been held to be a basic structure of the Constitution. No law can be permitted to curtail the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, section 29 of Act of 1959 does not come to the rescue of respondents. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13-6-2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to register the document dated 4-12-2004 considering the said document as trust deed. Since the document has already been created on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-, therefore, it fulfills the requirement of Article 56 of IInd schedule attached to Act of 1998. The document shall be registered as trust deed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn