This matter was taken out of turn at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, as there was a serious grievance with regard to non compliance with this Court's order made on 16.12.2011. This Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) on 16.12.2011 passed the following order:
"The learned advocate for the petitioner has moved a Draft Amendment. The same is granted and may be carried out on, or before, 19-11-2011.
Heard Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Pratiksha Laheri, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Senior Advocate has refereed to Entry 17 of 1st Schedue of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and has submitted that, as per the said Entry, if the sale has been conducted under the aegis of the Court, the purchase price is the only consideration for fixation of market value. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 32A(1) of the Act, the authorities are to determine the market value for levy of stamp duty. However, the proviso to the said Section is very specific in stating that if the property is sold through the Central Government, the consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed shall be deemed to be the true market value of the property. It is contended that in the present case, the property has been sold by the Official Liquidator of the Central Government, therefore,the said proviso would come into play and the provisions of Section 32A(1) would not be invoked, in the case of the petitioner. It is further urged that as per the directions of the High Court, an advertisement was issued inviting bids in respect of the property and, as is clear from order dated 09-05-2005 in Official Liquidator Report No.47 of 2005 in Company Petition No.79 of 1995, the property in question has been auctioned in favour of the petitioner, who was the highest bidder, for an amount of Rs.11,31,90,400/-. However, ignoring the above aspects, the respondents have fixed the market value of the property at almost Rs.24 crores.
The learned Senior Advocate has brought to the notice of this Court, a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8325 of 2011 and 8326 of 2011, decided on 27-09-2011, wherein, referring to another judgment in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Laxmi Devi (Smt.), (2008)4 SCC 720, it has been held that an exorbitant demand made by the Registering Officer is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
It is stated by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish a Bank Guarantee for the differential amount demanded by respondent No.1. As the original Registered documents of the petitioner for the land in question are lying with the said respondent for the last more than six years, the said documents may be directed to be released, so that the petitioner can raise funds and carry on other business activities, on the basis of the same.
Issue Notice, returnable on 10-01-2012. The petitioner shall give a Bank Guarantee for the differential amount which has been quantified at Rs.1,01,12,000/- as mentioned in the impugned order dated 19-09-2011. The said Bank Guarantee shall be furnished to respondent No.1 on, or before, 31-12-2011.
On furnishing of the Bank Guarantee by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall release the original Registered Documents of the petitioner regarding the land in question.
In addition to the normal mode of service, direct service is also permitted."
When this matter was listed before this Court on 10.01.2012, this Court (Coram: S.R.Brahmbhatt, J.) passed the following order:
"Shri Hardhik Soni, learned AGP, seeks time to indicate the development and explain as to why the order dated 16/12/2011 has so far not been complied with, though the document, i.e. Bank Guarantee was tendered on 20/12/2011. The Court shall take very serious view if no compliance report is placed on record. It goes without saying that the authorities are at liberty to deliver the document, or else, be ready with the explanation, which would otherwise amounting to committing deliberate breach of direction issued by this Court.
At the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader, adjourned to 16/1/2012."
Today, when the Court inquired to learned AGP that what happened to the order he submitted that the L.P.A.(stamp)No.62 of 2012 in S.C.A. No. 17211 of 2011 is filed and Court may adjourned the matter for a period of 10 days. The status report is produced on record.
Learned senior advocate for the petitioner contended that the filing of L.P.A. which is not even having pukka number cannot be subject matter of fact for stalling the hearing of this case and the Court may issue rule after hearing the parties and pass appropriate order on relief.
Learned AGP, at this stage submitted that the reply affidavit is also not filed, as the L.P.A. was considered to be filed at the relevant time, at this stage.
This Court is of the view that the order passed on 16.12.2011 is said to have been served upon the respondents on 20.12.2011 along with Bank Guarantee and till date the respondents have chosen not even to file 226(3) application for vacating and/or modifying the order nor have they chosen to file reply and they have filed L.P.A., which is yet to be cleared on account of some objections as it has been only a stamp number and no pukka number is given. In such a situation, the Court is of the prima facie view that the inaction on the part of the respondents may be treated as disentitling them to continue non compliance with the order dated 16.12.2011 and hence the respondents are granted time of 10 days to file reply and the document in question, which is ordered to be delivered, shall be delivered on or before 20.01.2012.
Hence, S.O. to 31.01.2012.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top