SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

The proviso to s.65(1) of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring deposit of 50% of recoverable amount before revision is entertained, is constitutionally valid as it is a statutory condition, not arbitrary or oppressive, and within legislative competence. However, High Court should examine whether demand and determination are exorbitant or arbitrary in writ jurisdiction cases, remanding for reconsideration.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Har Devi Asnani; Respondents: State of Rajasthan & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of High Court Decisions and Constitutional Challenge
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 8325 of 2011 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 8326 of 2011 allowed.
Legal Topics
Stamp Duty Determination, Constitutional Validity of Pre Deposit Proviso, Alternative Remedy Vs Writ Jurisdiction
Property Law Stamp Duty Constitutional Law Stamp Duty Determination Constitutional Validity of Pre Deposit Proviso Alternative Remedy Vs Writ Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Har Devi Asnani

Appellant

State of Rajasthan & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of High Court Decisions and Constitutional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the proviso to s.65(1) of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring pre-deposit of 50% recoverable amount for revision, constitutionally valid?
  2. 2 Whether alternative remedy of revision, requiring 50% deposit, is efficacious when demand is exorbitant, affecting writ jurisdiction under Article 226?
  3. 3 Was the determination of property value and stamp duty by the Collector exorbitant or arbitrary?

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso to s.65(1) of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring deposit of 50% of recoverable amount before revision is entertained, is constitutionally valid as it is a statutory condition, not arbitrary or oppressive, and within legislative competence. However, High Court should examine whether demand and determination are exorbitant or arbitrary in writ jurisdiction cases, remanding for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 8325 of 2011 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 8326 of 2011 allowed.

Orders

  • Constitutional challenge to proviso of s.65(1) Rajasthan Stamp Act dismissed; provision upheld.
  • High Court orders in SB Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009 and DB Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1261 of 2009 set aside.