N.M. Lodha, AAG, B.L. Bhati, AGA, Shyam Toshniwal, for Respondents;

Honble GUPTA, J.–This bunch of writ petitions (detailed in Schedule-A) have been filed before the Division Bench,seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Collector, under chapter IV, V and clause (a) of the proviso to Section 29 and/or Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and seeking to challenge the validity of the provisions of proviso to Section 65 (1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and since for the present purposes they involve the common question of law, petitions are being disposed by this common order.

(2). We need not encumber the judgment by narrating facts of each individual case, and may confine our judgment to the validity of provisions noticed above only, as the matters have come up before Division Bench only on account of validity of above provisions having been challenged.

(3). To start with, we may be gainfully reproduce the provisions of Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as a whole, which reads as under :-

"65. Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.- (1)Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Collector under Chapter IV and V and under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec. 2 9 and under Sec. 35 of the Act, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order:

Provided that no revision application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of there recoverable amount.

(2) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo motu or on information received from the registering officer or otherwise call for and examine the record of any case decided in proceeding held by the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit:

Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter."

(4). Out of the above provisions, it is only the proviso appended to Section 65 (1), which is under challenge.

(5). While arguing on the side of the petitioners, to challenge the proviso, it was contended by Mr.Mehta, that against the order of the Collector passed under Chapter-IV and V, and under clause (a) of first proviso to Section 29, and under Section 35 of the Act, the only remedy provided under the Act is the one under Section 65 (1) , which in substance is a remedy in the nature of appeal, and by incorporating the proviso to this sub-section, the remedy of the appeal has been rendered illusory, rather meaningless, inasmuch as the condition is onerous,burdensome, and cumbersome, and by this reason it is very much unreasonable, and arbitrary. The other argument advanced is, that Section 65 of the Act comprises of two parts, being sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) , inasmuch as under sub-section (1) any person aggrieved by an order made by the Collector under the aforesaid provision can apply for revision: While under subsection (2) the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo motu, or on information received from the registering officer, or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any case decided, in proceeding held by the Collector, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings, and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit. It is contended, that the requirement of pre-deposit, as comprised in the proviso to subsection (1) , is not attracted in the case of eventuality comprehended by sub-section (2) , thus the provision is discriminatory, and is liable to be struck down. Then, it was also submitted, that the stamp duty is a direct tax, and the provision for pre-deposit as comprised in other taxing provisions, is in the legisla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document