Page 1

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

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 2

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

Page 3

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

Page 4

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

Page 5

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.  

Page 6

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)