Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2582-2584 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1012-1014 of 2012)
M/S. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCJTION LIMITED Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2585 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6462 of 2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2586 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9673 of 2012)
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The short issue raised in these appeals pertains
to the stamp duty payable by the developer and the
allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp
Page 1
2
Act, 1899.
4. In a writ petition filed by the developer, in
respect of the bipartite agreement between the State
and the developer, the High Court by judgment dated
th
4 August, 2011 relegated the developer to the
competent authority. However, in the writ petitions
filed by the allottees of the developer, by another
th
judgment dated 16 August, 2011, the High Court took
the view that even in respect of the tripartite
agreement between the State on the one hand and the
developer and allottees on the other hand also, full
stamp duty is payable on the basis that the
arrangement is a lease. Before us, several
contentions are taken, some of which we may refer
below :-
1. Whether the tripartite agreement qua the
allottees is a lease, is a matter to be
JUDGMENT
adjudicated by the competent authority and
therefore, the High Court was not justified
in going to that issue;
2. The allottees were in any case exempted
from payment of the stamp duty.
There are a few other contentions as well.
5. In our view, bereft of the required materials
before the High Court, the Court was not justified in
Page 2
3
adjudicating the issue at the first instance when
there is a statutory scheme provided for adjudication
of such issues by the competent authorities
concerned.
6. In that view of the matter, without expressing
any further opinion, we set aside the judgment dated
16.8.2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
73277 of 2010 and other connected matters. The
parties are relegated to the competent authority
under the Indian Stamp Act in the State of Uttar
Pradesh for the adjudication of the dispute. We
direct the Authority concerned to issue notice to the
parties, hear them and pass final orders on merits on
the dispute within a period of six months from today.
7. As far as Writ Petition 40656 of 2004 filed by
JUDGMENT
the developer leading to the Judgment dated 4.8.2011
is concerned, we are informed that during the
pendency of the special leave petition before this
Court, the adjudicating authority has passed an
order on 16.1.2015 and thereafter the matter was
carried before the appellate authority and the
appellate authority passed an order on 22.4.2015 and
the issue is now before the High Court. It appears
that the authorities have passed such orders on
Page 3
4
different dates and therefore, similar other matters
are consequently before the High Court.
8. Therefore, we express no opinion on the legality
or otherwise of the orders passed by the competent
authorities, since it is for the parties to take up
all available contentions before the High Court and
it is for the High Court to pass appropriate orders.
9. Having regard to the fact that the issue has been
pending since long, we request the High Court to
dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously.
10. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
........................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi,
March 09, 2016
Page 4
5
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1012-1014/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/08/2011
in WC No. 40656/2004 16/08/2011 in MWP No. 73277/2010 16/08/2011 in
MWP No. 56556/2010 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at
Allahabad)
M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 6462/2012
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 9673/2012
(With Office Report)
Date : 09/03/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
JUDGMENT
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Dharitry Phookan,Adv.
Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Chandra Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
State of U.P. Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Kumar, adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv.
Page 5
6
Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv.
Mr. Vinay Garg,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv.
For Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[RENU DIWAN] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR]
COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
JUDGMENT
Page 6