Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that impugned order has been passed for calculation of the Court fee in accordance with Section 24 (b) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 at the current DLC rate of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Act of 1961 for the purpose of determination of the market value for particularly suits falling under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 24 of the Act of 1961 prescribe for a proper modus-operandi under Section 7 sub-section 2 Clause (a) and (b) of the Act of 1961.

2. In support of above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Amrit Lal & Ors. v. Heera Ram & Anr. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 39/2016), decided on 18.05.2016. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:-

"Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not the executants of the sale deed in question and, therefore, relief of declaration sought by them is justified in the circumstances of the case. Once the suit is for declaration, provisions of section 24 of the Court Fees Act would come in picture, wherein, the said provision requires that in a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of Rs. 20/-. The determination of the market value has to be done in terms of section 7 of the Court Fees Act which provides that market value of the land in a suit falling under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 24 shall be deemed to be where rent in respect of such land has been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned therefor during the last settlement and based on the said provision the plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 4568.50 p. and has paid the court fee on the same. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have valued the suit incorrectly and that the court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, as alleged by the petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the learned court below has rightly adjudicated the dispute under Section 11 of the Act of 1961 whereby the Court had discretion to decide the court fees before hearing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent has also averred that the petitioner has concealed the relevant order regarding the same dispute which is Annexure R-1/2 dated 06.07.2017.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that that present suit had been instituted seeking declaratory relief. Section 24 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 reads as follows :-

"24(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market-value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees;

(b) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market-value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of twenty rupees."

5. Admittedly, the present suit falls under the category of Section 24(b) of the Act of 1961. It is accepted by both the parties, the prayer is for declaration and for consequential injunction pertaining to immovable property. The Court fee as per the Section 24 (b) of the Act of 1961 has to be computed on 1/5 of the market value of the property. Section 7 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 reads as follows :-

"7(2). The marked-value of land in suits falling under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 24 or under Clauses (a) 7 Section 26 or Section 38 or under Section 29 or under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-section (3) of Section 35 or under Section 36 or under Section 44 shall be deemed to be -

(a) where rent in respect of such land has been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned therefore during the last settlement, and

(b) Where rent in respect of such land has not been settled, twenty-five times the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement for similar land in the neighbourhood. "

6. Thus, it is clear that the statute itself prescribe modus operandi for determination of the market value. Particularly, the market value to be determined for the suits under Clause (a) and (b) of Section 24 is 25 times the rent rate sanctioned during the last settlement. Thus, when once the statute itself is prescribing the mode of determination of market value, then the order passed by the learned court below to decide the market value as per the DLC rate cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The objection of concealment also cannot be sustained in view of the pleadings made by the counsel for the petitioner in para No. 9 of the petition.

7. Thus, the present petition is allowed ad the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 is quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to accept the determination of the market value strictly in accordance with Section 7 Subsection 2 Clause (a) and (b).