Vishal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (with Gautam Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Daulat Ram v. State of Rajasthan)

[2026:RJ-JD:52920]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5660/2026
CNR: RJHC010428232026 | URN: CRLMB / 12654U / 2026

Vishal Singh (Presently Lodged In District Jail Jalore) ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6084/2026
CNR: RJHC010442742026 | URN: CRLMB / 13500U / 2026

Gautam Chand (Lodged In Dist. Jail Jalore) ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6414/2026
CNR: RJHC010470072026 | URN: CRLMB / 14224U / 2026

Daulat Ram (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jalore) ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Devki Nandan Vyas
For Respondent(s): Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP with Mr. Om Prakash

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the common order (hcraj file 205300056602026_8.pdf; 5 pages; uploaded 30.10.2026). The paragraph numbers 1-8 are the Court's own. (1) The cause title is abridged: the petitioners' parentage, ages and addresses are omitted. (2) Paragraph 4 quotes the Court's earlier order dated 21.05.2026; its eight quoted paragraphs are kept as separate lines inside paragraph 4, as printed. (3) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'district headquarter' (paragraphs 1 and 5) and 'Principle Secretary' (for Principal Secretary, three times in the quoted order of 21.05.2026). (4) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. Removed as page furniture: the running heads '[2026:RJ-JD:52920]', '(n of 5)' and '[CRLMB-5660/2026]', the upload/download stamps, the staff lines and the TCPDF line. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 28.10.2026.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

28/10/2026

1. This Court, while considering Bail Application No. 6414/2026 along with the connected bail applications, came across an issue concerning the District Level Committee (DLC) rates prevailing in Jalore, which is a district headquarter.

2. This Court was surprised to observe a substantial disparity between the actual market value of land situated in Jalore and the DLC rates fixed by the State Government. DLC rates are the circle rates, determined to prescribe the minimum market value of immovable property for the purpose of registration of sale deeds and other instruments relating to the transfer of land. Stamp duty is levied on the basis of such value, and the amount so collected is deposited in the State exchequer.

3. The DLC is constituted to determine the rates of immovable property after conducting a survey and assessing the prevailing market value, with a view to fixing rates that reasonably reflect the market value of the property. The purpose of fixing such rates is, inter alia, to curb transactions involving unaccounted money and prevent the evasion of stamp duty. Although some variation between the DLC rates and the actual market value may be inevitable, an exorbitant disparity between the two may facilitate the circulation of unaccounted money and cash transactions representing the difference between the actual market value and the value declared in the registered instrument. The DLC rates, therefore, assume considerable significance, as stamp duty is levied on the basis thereof and the revenue so collected is utilised for the development of the State. The fixation of appropriate DLC rates is, thus, essential to discourage the undervaluation of property, the use of unaccounted money in property transactions and the consequent evasion of stamp duty.

4. This Court vide order dated 21.05.2026, recorded the following observations:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the present bail applications at this stage however, seeks liberty for the petitioners to file a fresh bail applications after filing of challan.
In view of the same, the present bail applications is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty aforesaid.
However, during the hearing of the present cases, a very serious issue has come to the notice of this Court. The Investigating Officer has drawn the attention of this Court to an agreement entered into between the parties, which has been taken on record and is also part of the case diary. As per the said agreement, the value of the land in question is stated to be Rs.5,51,00,000/-. However, pursuant to the said agreement, the sale deed alleged is shown to have been executed only for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-.
It is submitted by the purchaser, through counsel, as well as by the Investigating Officer, that owing to the prevailing difference between the market value and the DLC (District Level Committee) rate, such a situation has arisen. According to them, although the actual market value of the land is Rs.5,51,00,000/-, the DLC rate was only Rs.8,00,000/- and, therefore, the document was registered for the said amount.
It appears that the same amounts to a massive fraud upon the State exchequer. A land having a market value of Rs.5,51,00,000/- has been got registered at the DLC rate of Rs.8,00,000/-, which is about 70 times lower than the actual market value. Such an act not only causes substantial loss to the State revenue but also prima facie shows transfer of unaccounted cash money involved in purchase and sale of immovable properties prevailing in the area.
Let this matter be brought to the notice of the Principle Secretary, Revenue Department, for taking appropriate action, including remedial measures. The matter shall also be further investigated, and a report be submitted before this Court on the next date of hearing by such officer as may be appointed by the Principle Secretary, Revenue Department.
Let the copy of the order be sent to the Principle Secretary Revenue for immediate action.
Let the matter be listed in second week of July for submission of the report and compliance of this order.”

5. This Court had observed that the DLC rates prevailing at district headquarter, Jalore were approximately seventy times (70 times) lower than the actual market value of the land. Such a substantial disparity raises serious concerns regarding the potential loss of revenue to the State exchequer and the possibility of transactions involving unaccounted money. A copy of the aforesaid order was also forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, for immediate action. However, this Court finds that no further action appears to have been taken in the matter.

6. The aforesaid issue came to the notice of this Court during the hearing of the bail applications. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to examine the matter further in the exercise of its jurisdiction over bail applications, as issues concerning State revenue and the determination of DLC rates fall outside the scope of the present proceedings. The issue, nevertheless, involves a matter of wider public interest and, therefore, merits consideration by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

7. In view of the foregoing, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the office to register a suo motu petition and place it before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration and placing it before the appropriate Bench.

8. The present bail applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J