LexSMT. HAR DEVI ASNANI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 599 SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8325 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 27, 2011. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] RAJASTHAN STAMP ACT, 1998: A B s. 65(1), proviso -Revision of order determining the c stamp duty - Requirement of deposit of 50% of recoverable amount - HELD: Proviso to s.65(1) is constitutionally valid - The right of appeal or revision is not an absolute right, but is a statutory right which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant made by the statute -Revision. D CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Article 226 - Writ petition challenging the order determining the stamp duty dismissed by High Court on the ground of alternative remedy of revision uls 65 of Rajasthan E Stamp Act - Held: Single Judge of the High Court should have examined the facts of the case to find out whether the determination of the value of the property purchased bY the appellant and the demand of additional stamp duty made by the Additional Collector were exorbitant so as to make the F remedy by way of revision requiring deposit of 50% of the demand before the revision is entertained, ineffective and call for interference under Article 226 - The orders passed by Single Judge in writ petition and by the Division Bench of the High Court in writ appeal are set aside and the writ petition is G remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law - Rajasthan Stamp act, 1998 - s. 65. The appellant purchased a residential plot in a Housing Scheme for a consideration of Rs.18 lacs under 599 H 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A a registered sale deed dated 16.05.2007 executed on a stamp duty of Rs.1,17,000/-. The Sub-Registrar did not accept the valuation made in the sale deed and after getting the plot inspected, determined the value of the land at Rs.2,58,44,260/-. The Additional Collector 8 (Stamps), upholding the determination made by the Sub- Registrar held the appellant liable to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.15,62,880/-, deficit registration charges of Rs.7,000/- and penalty of Rs.120/- totaling to a sum of Rs.15,70,000/- and accordingly made the demand on the c appellant and directed recovery of the same. The appellant filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009 before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge holding that the appellant had an alternative and efficacious remedy against the demand by way of a 0 revision before the Board of Revenue. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 22.03.2010. Aggrieved, the appellant filed C. A. No. 8326 of 2011. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed D.B. Civil Writ E Petition No.14220 of 2009 in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, which provided that no revision application would be entertained unless it was accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of F fifty percent of the recoverable amount. The writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 16.11.2009. The appellant challenged the order in C.A. No. 8325 of 2011. G Dismissing C.A. No. 8325 of 2011 and allowing C.A. No. 8326 of 2011, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court has taken a consistent view that the right of appeal or right of revision is not an · absolute right and it is a statutory right which can be H circumscribed by the conditions in the grant made by the HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 601 ORS. statute. The proviso to s. 65(1) of the Rajas than Stamp A Act, 1998, requiring deposit of 50% of the demand before a revision is entertained against the demand is only a condition for the grant of the right of revision and the proviso does not render the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power of the State legislature. s [Para 1 O] [610-8-C] 1.2 In the considered opinion of the Court, therefore, the proviso to s. 65(1) of the Act is constitutionally valid and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2009 in D.B.CWP No.14220 of 2009. [para 11] C [610-H] Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P. Laxmi Devi 2008 (3 ) SCR 330 = (2008) 4 SCC 720 ; The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others 1975 ( 3) SCR D 220 = (1975) 2 SCC 175; Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another vs. Collector of Custom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.