Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Kishore Kumar Bhargava And Anr vs State Of Raj And Anr … on 7 March, 2026
[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.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (2 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
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
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (3 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
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 owner, of the
[land or building] or portion thereof; and
(d) the mortgagees in possession thereof:
Provided that in the case of [land or building]
owned by the State Government, the lessee or
grantee thereof from the State Government
shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed
to be the owner of the [land or building] as the
case may be:
Provided further that in the case of [land or
building] held on lease for a term not less than
[twenty years], the lessee shall, for the
purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the
owner of such [land or building.”
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (4 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
9. Section 2(8) of the Act defines the definition of “occupier” as
under :
“Occupier: means the person in actual occupation
or use of the [land or building] or a portion thereof,
in respect of which the tax is payable, and includes-
(a) the owner in occupation;
(b) the tenant who for the time being is
paying or is liable to pay rent in respect
thereof to the owner;
(c) the rent-free tenant or licensee thereof;
and
(d) the person who is liable to pay to the
owner damages for unauthorized use and
occupation thereof.”
10. Section 3 of the Act of 1964 that lays down the manner of
levying of lands and buildings tax is reproduced as under :
“(1) There shall be levied and collected with effect on
and from 1st April, 1973, for each year a tax on
lands and buildings situate in an urban area
(hereinafter referred to as Lands and Buildings Tax),
from the owner of such lands and buildings, at such
rate not exceeding 2% of the market value thereof
as the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette declare in this behalf :
Provided that the State Government may fix
graduated rates of tax on different slabs of market
values of urban lands and buildings:
Provided further that until a notification declaring rate
of tax is issued under this subsection, the rate of tax
on lands and buildings shall be as follows:-
On the first Rs. 1,00,000/- of the market Nil
Value of the land and building.
On the next Rs.2,00,000/- of the market ½%
value of the land and building.
On the next Rs.7,00,000/- of the market 1%
value of the land and building.
On the balance of the market value of the ₁½%
land and building in excess of Rs.10,00,000/-
Provided further that with effect on and from the date
of commencement of the Rajasthan Lands and
Buildings Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act No. 14 of
1995) no tax shall be levied and collected on lands
and buildings situate in an urban area having a(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (5 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]population of less than one and a half lakh according
to the latest census figures:
Provided further that if any area is declared a
cantonment, or is constituted a Municipality, after the
commencement of the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax
(Amendment) Act, 1973, the tax on lands and
buildings situate in such area shall be levied and
collected with effect from the commencement of the
year following the year during which the area is
declared a cantonment or is constituted a Municipality.
[x x x]
(1-A) For removal of doubt it is declared that the tax
shall be levied on land or building or both separately
as units.
(1-B) (a) An Assessee may pay one-time-tax in lieu of
the tax payable for each year under sub-section(1):
[xxx]
(b) The one-time-tax shall be the amount of tax
arrived at after multiplying the amount of yearly tax,
assessed and levied under the provisions of this Act,
by the calculation factor, not exceeding ten, to be
notified by the State Government in the Official
Gazette, from time to time.
(c) Where any building, on which one-time-tax has
been paid, is so rebuilt or enlarged as to make the
asses see liable to pay an enhanced or additional
amount of tax under this Act, the asses see shall,
subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to
pay the amount of enhanced or additional yearly tax
or one-time-tax.
[xxx]
(2) The tax shall be in addition to any other tax for the
time being payable in respect of the land and building
or portion thereof under any other law for the time
being in force.”
11. As per Section 7 of the Act of 1964, the owner of the land or
building is liable to submit return. However, the assessment can
be made by the Assessing Authority by following procedures under
Section 11 of the Act of 1964, where ever the owner of land or
building has failed to furnish the return, the tax has to be
determined on the basis of the market value.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (6 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
12. Section 15A of the Act of 1964 lays down the provisions as to
how the tax and penalty has to be realized and as per Section
15A(4), a separate notice of demand is required to be served on
the assessee. Section 15A of the Act of 1964 is reproduced herein
below :
“15A. Realisation of tax and penalty.-(1) After
the assessment of the market value and
determination of the amount of tax under sections
10, 11, 13, 15 or 15-B, the prescribed officer shall
cause a notice of demand to be served on the
assessee. Such notice shall specify the amount of
tax payable by the assessee and shall contain such
other particulars as may be prescribed.
(2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall
call upon the assessee to pay the tax specified
therein within such time and subject to such
conditions in such installments as may be
prescribed.
(3) In default of the payment of tax payable under
sub-section (2) or of penalty under section 16-A or
17, the amount of tax or penalty [including interest
under section 17-A] shall be recoverable as an
arrear of land revenue.
(4) In respect of the tax payable for each year a
separate notice of demand shall be served on the
assessee.
(5) If no assessment has been made under section
10, 11 or 13 the owner shall continue to pay the
amount of tax due according to the return under
section 7 or 13 for every year in advance on or
before the last day of June or at his option, in two
equal installments payable on or before the last day
of June and December until assessment is made.”
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (7 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
13. Section 15D of the Act of 1964, which is relevant for the
present purpose, provides that recovery of tax from occupier can
be made in certain cases as under :
“(1) Where the owner of any land or building is
himself not the occupier thereof and is in
default of payment of the tax, such tax may be
recovered in the manner prescribed from the
occupier out of the rent or other sum which has
or may fail due to the owner in respect of such
land or building.
(2) Any occupier who has paid the tax under
sub-section (1) shall be entitled to deduct the
amount so paid from the amount of rent or any
other sum payable from time to time to the
owner.”
14. The petitioners before us would come within the definition of
“occupier” and the grounds which have been raised would not be
available to an occupier to contest, as he cannot step into the
shoes of the owner. Of course, once a tax has been imposed, the
occupier can always take steps for recovery of the same from the
owner, as laid down under Section 15D(2) of the Act of 1964.
15. Having noticed the aforesaid provisions, we are of the firm
view that the order of demand cannot be quashed solely on the
ground that notice has not been given to the occupier, since the
notices have to be originally sent to the concerned owner who
admittedly has failed to deposit the tax, the recovery is being
affected from the occupier who would be liable to pay the amount.
16. In view thereto, we dismiss the present writ petition and
vacate the stay granted by this Court and direct the petitioners to
deposit the land and building tax as demanded along with interest
@12% per annum.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (8 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]
17. We, however, refrain from imposing any penalty considering
that this Court had passed the stay order.
18. The Department shall be free to recover the amount from the
present writ petitioners who are the Lrs of the deceased.
19. At the same time, it would be open for the petitioners to
recover the amount by adjusting the said amount from the rent in
terms of Section 15D(2) (supra). The law in this regard has been
settled by the Apex Court in the Judgment of “Indore
Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal”, (2020)
8 SCC 129, wherein the Court has held as under:
“325. In Karnataka Rare Earth v. Deptt. of Mines &
Geology [Karnataka Rare Earth v. Deptt. of Mines &
Geology, (2004) 2 SCC 783], this Court observed
that maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit requires
that the party should be placed in the same position
but for the court’s order which is ultimately found to
be not sustainable which has resulted in one party
gaining advantage which otherwise would not have
earned and the other party has suffered but for the
orders of the court. The successful party can
demand the delivery of benefit earned by the other
party, or make restitution for what it has lost. This
Court observed :
10. In … the doctrine of actus curiae
neminem gravabit and held that the
doctrine was not confined in its
application only to such acts of the
court which were erroneous; the
doctrine is applicable to all such acts
as to which it can be held that the
court would not have so acted had it
been correctly apprised of the facts(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9835-DB] (9 of 9) [CW-2883/2002]and the law. It is the principle of
restitution that is attracted. When on
account of an act of the party,
persuading the court to pass an order,
which at the end is held as not
sustainable, has resulted in one party
gaining advantage which it would not
have otherwise earned, or the other
party has suffered an impoverishment
which it would not have suffered, but
for the order of the court and the act
of such party, then the successful
party finally held entitled to a relief,
assessable in terms of money at the
end of the litigation, is entitled to be
compensated in the same manner in
which the parties would have been if
the interim order of the court would
not have been passed. The successful
party can demand : (a) the delivery of
benefit earned by the opposite party
under the interim order of the court, or
(b) to make restitution for what it has
lost.”
20. The present Civil Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with
aforesaid observations.
21. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
AMIT/1
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 11:22:43 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 10:14:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)