SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

                    [2011] 11 S.C.R. 599


                  SMT. HAR DEVI ASNANI                             A
                               v.
            STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
              (Civil Appeal No. 8325 of 2011)
                   SEPTEMBER 27, 2011.
                                                                   B
      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

    RAJASTHAN STAMP ACT, 1998:

    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
  revision before the Board of Revenue. The appeal filed
0
  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 1O] [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 Customs (Preventive), Bombay 1975
                 =
( 3 ) SCR 220 (1988) 4 sec 402 and Gujarat Agro
Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of
Ahmedabad and Others (1999) 4 sec 468 - relied on.              E

    Mis Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State & Ors. AIR
2008 Rajasthan 61 - approved.

    Mardia Chemical Ltd. And Others vs. Union of India and
Others (2004) 4 SCC 311 - held inapplicable.                    F
    Seth Nand Lal and Another vs. State of Haryana and
Others 1980 (supp) SCC 575 - cited.

     2. However, the Single Judge of the High Court in SB
Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009 as well as the Division    G
Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ)
No.1261 of 2009 have not considered whether the
determination of market value and the demand of deficit
stamp duty were exorbitant so as to make the remedy by
way of revision requiring deposit of 50% of the demand          H
    602      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 11 S.C.R.

A before the revision is entertained ineffective. The Single
  Judge 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
B exorbitant so as to call for interference under Article 226
  of the Constitution. Therefore, the orders passed by the
  Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009
  and by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil
  Appeal (Writ) No.1261 of 2009 are set aside and the writ
c petition is remanded back to the High Court for
  consideration afresh in accordance with law. [para 12-14]
  [611-D; 612-B-D]
                          Case Law Reference:

D         AIR 2008 Rajasthan 61       approved          para 4
          2004 (3) SCR982          held inapplicat.;e   para 6
          2008 (3) SCR330          relied on            para 7
          1975 (3) SCR 220         relied on            para 8
E
          (1999) 4 sec 468         cited                para 8
          1980 (supp) sec 575 relied on                 para 8
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8325 of 2011.
                                   WITH
    CA No. 8326 of 2011.

          Ajay Choudhary for the Appellant.
G
        Abhishek Gupta, Kanku Gupta and R. Gopalakrishnan for
    the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H         A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
   HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &                  603
             ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     2. The appellant purchased Plot No. A-7 situated in the        A
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 e2'ecuted on a stamp duty of Rs.1, 17,000/-. The Sub-
Registrar, SR IV, Jaipur, did not accept the valuation made in      B
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
~ct, 1998 (for short 'the Act') to the appellant on 07.07.2008      c
to: appear before him on 19.09.2008 and to show-cause why
prosecution against ttie 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   D
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              E
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 ~ 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     F
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       G
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
                                                                    H
    604      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R


A   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
B   the order dated 20.07.2009 of the Additional Collector
    (Stamps), Jaipur. A learned Single Judge of the High Court,
    however, dismissed the Wri.t 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
C   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.1.261 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court,
D   but by order dated 22.03.2010 the Division Bench of the High
    Court held that there was no error o. 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,
E   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
F 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.
G The ground taken by the appellant in the writ petition before the
  High Court was that unless the appellant deposited fifty percent
  of the total amount of Rs.15, 70,000/- towards deficit stamp
  duty, registration charges and penalty, the revision petition of
  the appellant would not be entertained and the appellant was
  not in a position to deposit such a huge amount as a condition ·
H
  HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &                  605
            ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
for filing the revision. The appellant accordingly contended A
before the High Court that the pre-condition of payment of fifty
percent of the recoverable amount for entertaining a revision
petition was arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The
Division Bench of the High Court, however, held in its order
dated 16.11.2009 that the constitutional validity of the proviso B
to Section 65 (1) of the Act had been examined by another
Division Bench of the High Court in Mis Choksi Heraeus Pvt.
Ltd., Udaipurv. State & Ors. [AIR 2008 Rajasthan 61] and the
proviso to Section 65 (1) of the Act had been held to be
constitutionally valid. The Division Bench relying on the c
aforesaid decision in Mis Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur·
 v. 1State & Ors. (supra) dismissed the Writ Petition by order
dated 16.11.2009. The appellant has filed the Civil Appeal
arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20964 of 2010 against the order
dated 16.11.2009 of the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ D
 Petition No.14220 of 2009.

      5. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel
for the parties, we must refer to Section 65 of the Act. Section
65 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow:
                                                                   E
    "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 section 29 and under section 35 of the
     Pict, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to     F
     the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority forrevision of such
     order:

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

    (2) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo moto
    or on information received from the registering officer or
    otherwise call for and examine the record of any case          H
     606       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


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

c.          6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
     although sub-section (1) of.Section 65 of the Act confers a right
     on a person to file a revision against the order of the Collector,
     the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act renders this right illusory
     by insisting that the revision application shall not be entertained
0    unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment
     of fifty percent of the recoverable amount. He submitted that the
     proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is therefore unreasonable
     and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and
     should be declared constitutionally invalid. He cited the decision
E    of this Court in Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of
     India and Others [(2004) 4 SCC 311] in which the provision
     requiring pre-deposit of 75% of the demand made by the bank
     or the financial institution in Section 17 of the Securitisation and
     Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
     Interest Act, 2002 has been held to be onerous and oppressive
F    rendering the remedy illusory and nugatory and constitutionally
     invalid.

          7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
     assuming that the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is
G    constitutionally valid where the valuation adopted by the
     Additional Collector or Collector and the consequent demand
     of additional stamp duty are unreasonable and exorbitant, the
     alternative remedy of revision after deposit of 50% of the
     exorbitant demand is not efficacious, and affected party should
H    be able to move the High Court under Article 226 of the
   HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &                      607
             ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Constitution. In support of this submission, he cited the decision      A
of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
vs. P. Laxmi Devi [(2008) 4 _sec 720)

     8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submitted that a revision or an appeal is a right conferred by
                                                                        8
the statute and the legislature while conferring this statutory right
can lay down conditions subject to which the appeal or revision
can be entertained and that there is nothing unreasonable or
arbitr~ry in the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act requiring
deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount before the revision            C
application is entertained. He argued that the proviso to
Section 6~(1) of the Act is in no way illusory and is only a
provision to ensure that the stamp duty demanded is recovered
in time and is not held up because of the pendency of the
revision. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in The Anant           D
Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others [(1975) 2 SCC
175]; Seth Nand Lal and Another vs. State of Haryana and
Others [1980 (supp) SCC 575]; Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and
Another vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay
[(1988) 4 SCC 402) and Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs.             E
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others
[(1999) 4 sec 468).                                          ·

      9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
decision of this Court in Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. F
Union of India and Others (supra) declaring the provision of
Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring
deposit of 75% of the demand as constitutionally invalid does
not apply to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in G
Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others (supra) this Court clearly held
that the amount of deposit of 75% of the demand is at the initial
proceedings itself when the bank or the financial institution
makes its demand on the borrower and the requirement of
deposit of such a heavy amount on the basis of one-sided claim
                                                                        H
    608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   of the bank or the financial institution at this stage, before the
    start of the adjudication of the dispute, cannot be said to be a
    reasonable condition. He submitted that in the instant case, the
    first adjudicatory authority is the Collector and only after the
    Collector determines the amount of stamp duty payable on the
B   documents, the affected party has a right of revision under
    Section 65(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the
    requirement of 50% of the amount determined by the Collector
    at the stage of filing of the revision is therefore not a
    requirement at the initial stage but a requirement at the
c   revisional stage and the decision of this Court in Mardia
    Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others
    (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

         10. We need not refer to all the decisions cited by the
    learned counsel for the parties because we find that in
D   Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P. Laxmi Devi
    (supra) this Court has examined a similar provision of Section
    47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, introduced by the Indian Stamp
    Act (AP. Amendment Act 8of1998). Sub-section (1) of Section
    47-A, introduced by Andhra Pradesh Act 8of1998 in the Indian
E   Stamp Act, is extracted hereinbelow:

         "47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc. how to be dealt with-
         (1) Where the registering officer appointed under the
         Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument of
F        conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement, release,
         agreement relating to construction, development or sale of
         any immovable property or power of attorney given for sale,
         development of immovable property, has reason to believe
         that the market value of the property which is the subject-
         matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the
G
         instrument; or that the value arrived at by him as per the
       . guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the
         Government from time to time has not been adopted by
         the parties, he may keep pending such instrument and
         refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the
H
  HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &                     609
            ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
    market value of the property and the proper duty payable          A
    thereon.

    Provided that no reference shall be made by the registering
    officer unless an amount equal to fifty per cent of the deficit
    duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned."
                                                                      8
Under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A quoted above, a
reference can be made to the Collector for determination of the
market value of property and the proper duty payable thereon
where the registering officer has reason to believe that the
market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the       C
instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that
the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or
caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time
has not been adopted by the parties. The proviso of sub-section
(1) of Section 47-A, however, states that no such reference shall     D
be made by the registering officer unless an amount equal to
fifty per cent of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited
by the party concerned. This proviso of .sub-section (1) of
Section 47-A was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court by P. Laxmi Devi and the Andhra Pradesh High Court              E
held that this proviso was arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh, however, filed an appeal by special leave
before this Court against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court and this Court held in para 18 at page 735 of [(2008)      F
4 sec 720] that there was no violation of Articles 14, 19 or
any other provision of the Constitution by the enactment of
Section 47-A as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment
Act 8 of 1998 and that the amendment was only for plugging
the loopholes and for quick realisation of the stamp duty and
was within the power of the State Legislature vide Entry 63 of        G
List-II read with Entry 44 of List-Ill of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution. While coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this
Court has relied on The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of
Gujarat and others (supra), Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and
Ano_ther vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay H
    610     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A   (supra) and Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal
    Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others (supra) in
    which 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 circumscribed by the conditions in
B   the grant made by the statute. Following this consistent view
    of this Court, we hold that the proviso to Section 65(1) of the
    Act, 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
c   the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power
    of the State legislature.

         11. We also find that in the impugned order the High Court
    has relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment of the High
    Court in Mis Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State & Ors.
D   (supra) for rejecting the challenge to the proviso to Section
    65(1) of the Act. We have perused the decision of the Division
    Bench of the High Court in Mis Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd.,
    Udaipur v. State & Ors. (supra) and we find that the Division
    Bench has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Court
E   in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of
    India and Other5 (supra) is not applicable to the challenge to
    the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act inasmuch as the
    provision of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Securitisation
    and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
F   Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring deposit of 75% of the
    demand related to deposit at the stage of first adjudication of
    the demand and was therefore held to be onerous and
    oppressive, whereas the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act in
    the present case requiring deposit of 50% of the demand is at
G   the stage of revision against the order of first adjudication made
    by the Collector and cannot by the same reasoning held to be
    onerous and oppressive. In our considered opinion, therefore,
    the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is constitutionally valid
    and we are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order
H   dated 16.11.2009 in D.B.CWP No.14220 of 2009. The Civil
  HAR DEVI ASNANI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN &                    611
            ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20964 of 2010 is therefore      A
dismissed.

      12. We are, however, inclined to interfere with the order
dated 21.10.2009 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court
in SB Civil Writ Petition No.12422 of 2009 as well as the order     B
dated 22.03.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court in
D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1261 of 2009. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High
Court have taken a view that as the appellant has a right of
revision under Section 65(1) of the Act, the writ petition of the   C
appellant challenging the determination of the value of the land
at Rs.2,58,44,260/- and the demand of additional stamp duty
and registration charges and penalty totaling to Rs.15,70,000/
- could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court and the Division
Bench of the High Court have not considered whether the             D
determination of market value and the demand of deficit stamp
duty were exorbitant so as to make the remedy by way of
revision requiring deposit of 50% of the demand before the
revision is entertained ineffective. In Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others vs. P. Laxmi Devi (supra) this Court, while      E
upholding the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the
 Indian Stamp Act introduced by Andhra Pradesh Amendment
Act 8 of 1998, observed:

    "29. In our opinion in this situation it is always open to a    F
    party to file a writ petition challenging the exorbitant
    demand made by the registering officer under the proviso
    to Section 47-A alleging that the determination made is
    arbitrary and/or based on extraneous considerations, and
    in .that case it is always open to the High Court, if it is     G
    satisfied that the allegation is correct, to set aside such
    exorbitant demand under the proviso to Section 47-A of
    the Stamp Act by declaring the demand arbitrary. It is well
    settled that arbitrariness violates Articles 14 of the
    Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
                                                                    H
    612        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A          [(1978) 1 SCC 248). Hence, the party is not remediless in
           this situation."

       13. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge should
  have examined the facts of the present case to find out whether
8 the determination of the value of the property purchased by the
  appellant and the demand of additional stamp duty made by
  the appellant by the Additional Collector were exorbitant so as
  to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

       14. We, therefore, allow the appeal arising out of S.L.P.
C (C) No.17233 of 2010, set aside the order passed by the
  learned Single Judge of the High Court in SB Civil Writ Petition
  No.12422 of 2009 and the order passed by the Division Bench
  of the High Court in D.S. Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1261 of 2009
  and remand the writ petition back to the High Court for fresh
D consideration in accordance with law. No costs.

    R.P.                                     Appeals disposed of.