Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16639 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S S.J.P. Infracon Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Anand Agarwal,Rakesh Pandey,Shreya Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The petitioner had, under the scheme for allotment of Large Group Housing/Builders' Residential Plots Scheme bearing Code No.BRS-03/2010, which was floated by the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority, applied for being allotted Plot No.GH-05 in Sector 16-B, Greater Noida measuring 198135.62 sq. meters. After the allotment, a registered lease deed was also executed and a Stamp Duty amounting to Rs.12,70,64,900/- was paid on the registration of the lease deed.
However, when by a judgment and order dated 12.5.2011 the High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings with respect to village Shahberi and other adjoining villages, the petitioner relinquished that portion of the plot which stood reverted to the tenure holders because of the High Court's order. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the authorities to return such Stamp Duty which was paid by it for the execution of the lease of such land, the acquisition of which had been quashed. In this regard, the petitioner made several representations to the State Government. When they were not being decided, Writ Petition No.3183 of 2018 (M/s. S.J.P. Infracon Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed and an order was passed on 24.1.2018 directing the State-respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed, by a letter dated 8.2.2018, that the representation of the petitioner had already been rejected on 14.8.2017. Hence the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason as had been given in the impugned order dated 14.8.2017 could not be sustained in the eyes of law as it had stated that the petitioner's case was not covered by the provisions of section 49(1), (2) and (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Learned counsel further submits that when the lease deed, as was executed between the petitioner and the Greater Noida, had been rendered void owing to the fact that the land in regard to which the lease deed was executed, itself no longer belonged to the Greater Noida because of the acquisition having been set aside by the High Court, the petitioner was not to be put to a loss and, the Stamp Duty which it had paid, be returned to it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in (2015) 16 SCC 31, The Committee- GFIL Vs. Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. & Ors. and has specifically read out paragraph 25 of it and submitted that when the lease deed itself had been rendered null and void because of the acquisition having been set aside, the Stamp Duty had to be returned.
Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Greater Noida, however, submitted that unless a case was covered under section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the question of return of Stamp Duty could not be considered at all.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the orders dated 14.8.2017 and 8.2.2018 cannot be sustained, thus, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for re-adjudication of the matter, who shall now decide as to whether the Stamp Duty paid by the petitioner had to be returned in view of the law laid down in (2015) 16 SCC 31.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)