// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10463/2008 Kanni Ram Sahu S/o late Ramchander Sahu Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10459/2008 Smt. Rekha Patni W/o Shri Ashok Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10460/2008 Smt. Uma Patni S/o Shri Mahendra Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10461/2008 Smt. Arti Gupta W/o Rahul Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10462/2008 Deeptiman Bhowmik S/o Pankaj Bihari Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10464/2008 Shri Ashok Patni S/o late Shri P.K. Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10465/2008 Amit Patni S/o Shri Ashok Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10466/2008 // 2 // Smt. Arti Gupta W/o Rahul Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10467/2008 Smt. Gunmala Patni W/o Shri Ashok Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10468/2008 Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Lal Kumawat Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10469/2008 Mahendra Gour S/o Shri Badri Narayan Gour Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10470/2008 Smt. Uma Patni W/o Shri Mahendra Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10471/2008 Smt. Indra Rajwanshi W/o Vishnu Gopal Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10472/2008 Gaurav Agarwal S/o Umesh Agarwal & Another Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And 15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10473/2008 Smt. Priti Agarwal W/o Mohit Agarwal Versus State of Rajasthan and Others And // 3 // 16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10474/2008 Smt. Uma Patni W/o Shri Mahendra Patni Versus State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 24.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ashok Verma, Counsel for petitioners in all writ petitions #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The point involved in the aforesaid writ petitions is one and same, therefore, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10463/2008, are that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the orders dated 15th November, 2006 (Annexure-9) and dated 18th September, 2007 (Annexure-12), passed by the Additional Collector (Stamp), Jaipur, on the application under Section 51(2) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act of 1998'). The Order (Annexure-12), impugned in these 16 Writ Petitions, is common but of different dates i.e. in Writ Petitions // 4 // No.10463/2008, 10459/2008, 10465/2008 and 10473/2008 it is dated 18.09.2007; in Writ Petition No.10471/2008 it is dated 28th November, 2007; and, in Writ Petitions No.10460/2008, 10461/2008, 10462/2008, 10464/2008, 10466/2008, 10467/2008, 10468/2008, 10469/2008, 10470/2008, 10472/2008, and 10474/2008 it is dated 14.09.2008. So far as the so-called order dated 15th November, 2006 (Annexure-9) is concerned, the same is an application or request-letter made by the Deputy Registrar (IV) Registration & Stamp, Jaipur, to the Additional Collector (Stamp), Jaipur, to initiate proceedings under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1998 only and cannot be said to be an order passed under the provisions of the Act. But, so far as the impugned order dated 18th September, 2007 (Annexure-12) is concerned, the same has been passed under the provisions of Section 51(2) of the Act of 1998. Admittedly, the aforesaid order passed under Section 51(2) of the Act of 1998 is revisable under Section 65 of the Act of 1998, but without exhausting the available alternative remedy, the petitioners have preferred these present writ petitions directly before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners // 5 // contended that the alternative remedy by way of revision under section 65 of the Act of 1998 cannot be said to be an alternative and efficacious remedy as no revision application is entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the impugned order Annexure-12 in the light of Sections 51(2) and 65 of the Act of 1998. For ready reference, Section 65 of the Act of 1998 is reproduced 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 section 29 and under section 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 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 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 // 6 // 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.” The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the impugned order (Annexure-12 in the writ petitions) passed by the Additional Collector (Stamp), Jaipur, under Section 51 (2) of the Act of 1998 is revisable by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The said remedy is an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Statute itself. It is settled law that unless the available alternative and efficacious remedy is availed of, the writ petition is normally not entertained directly. The said alternative and efficacious remedy provided by Statute itself cannot be allowed to be bypassed only for the reason that the petitioners are required to deposit fifty percent of the recoverable amount. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the statutory remedy provided under the Act of 1998 by way of revision application under Section 65 of the Act of 1998 against the impugned order, is an alternative and efficacious remedy and the petitioners should first approach the // 7 // revisional authority against the impugned order and the present writ petitions cannot be entertained directly before this Court. Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioners as mentioned herein-above. Since all the above sixteen writ petitions have been decided by this common order, the office is directed to place a copy of this order in each connected writ petition for ready reference. No order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//