M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs State Of U.P. .

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

KURIAN, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sukhbir Paul Kaur Date: 2016.03.18

3. The short issue raised in these appeals pertains 13:17:06 IST Reason:

to the stamp duty payable by the developer and the

allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp 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

4th August, 2011 relegated the developer to the

competent authority. However, in the writ petitions

filed by the allottees of the developer, by another

judgment dated 16th 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

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 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

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 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.

........................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)

........................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, March 09, 2016 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

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. 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)