IMPORTANT POINT
The right of appeal or right of revision is not an absolute right and it is a statutory right which can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant made by the statute.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J. —

Leave granted.

2. The appellant purchased Plot No. A-7 situated in the Housing Scheme No.12, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, of Krishna Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited by a registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.2007 for a consideration of Rs.18 lacs. The Sale Deed was executed on a stamp duty of Rs.1,17,000/-. The Sub- Registrar, SR IV, Jaipur, did not accept the valuation made in the Sale Deed and appointed an Inspection Officer to inspect the plot purchased by the appellant and determined the value of the land at Rs.2,58,44,260/-. The Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur, served a notice under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’) to the appellant on 07.07.2008 to appear before him on 19.09.2008 and to show-cause why prosecution against the appellant should not be initiated for concealing or misrepresenting facts relating to the valuation mentioned in the Sale Deed resulting in evasion of stamp duty. The appellant filed a reply stating therein that the plot of land purchased by her under the Sale Deed was allotted to her for residential purposes and was not meant for commercial use and that the sale price was paid entirely by a cheque. The appellant also stated in her reply that adjacent to the plot purchased by her, Plot Nos.A-3 near Scheme No.12, Roop Sagar, had been sold by a registered Sale Deed on 16.12.2006 and another Plot No.A-38, near Scheme No.12, Roop Sagar, at a price less than the price in the Sale Deed dated 16.05.2007 under which she had purchased Plot No.A-7 in Housing Scheme No.12. Along with the reply, the appellant had also furnished copies of the two Sale Deeds of the adjacent Plot Nos.A-3 and A-38 in Scheme No.12. In the reply, the appellant requested the Additional Collector (Stamps) to drop the recovery proceedings. The Additional Collector (Stamps) heard the appellant and in his order dated 20.07.2009 held after considering the Site Inspection Report that the determination made by the Sub-Registrar at Rs. 2,58,44,260/- was correct and that the appellant was liable to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.15,62,880/-, deficit registration charges of Rs.7,000/- and penalty of Rs.120/- totalling to a sum of Rs.15,70,000/- and accordingly made the demand on the appellant and directed recovery of the same.

3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009 before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the order dated 20.07.2009 of the Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 21.10.2009 holding that the appellant had a remedy against the order of the Additional Director by way of a revision before the Board of Revenue and as there was an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the appellant, there was no just reason for the appellant to invoke the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant then filed D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1261 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court, but by order dated 22.03.2010 the Division Bench of the High Court held that there was no error or illegality apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge and that the appeal was devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17233 of 2010.

4. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed a separate Writ Petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14220 of 2009 in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’), which provided that no revision application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount. The ground taken by the appellant in the writ petition before the High Court was that unless the appellan