Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dwarika Prasad vs State Of U.P. . on 4 January, 2016
Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh
C.A.9/16
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8449 of 2008)
Dwarika Prasad Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The basic issue that has emanated for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant should have faced with forfeiture of the earnest money and also the amount paid on the stamp papers on two grounds, namely, the plea advanced by the appellant that he had purchased the stamp papers amounting to Rs.8.80 lacs before the Additional District Magistrate, is not correct and the assail to the various orders being belated was a futile endeavour on his part to get back the amount.
We need not state the facts in detail. Suffice it Signature Not Verified to mention that the appellant became successful in an Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2016.01.08 17:00:12 IST Reason: auction for the mining area and the value that was determined was Rs.35 lacs. As is evincible, he deposited C.A.9/16 2 Rs.17.5 lacs, out of which 8.75 lacs was towards security amount and Rs.8.75 lacs towards first instalment. As set-forth, the remaining 25% was to be deposited in thirty days and the rest to be spread over in instalments. The auction of the mining area was approved in favour of the appellant and the acceptance thereof was communicated. The appellant was required to deposit the stamp papers by 24th February, 2003. He prayed for extension of time and on 5th March, 2003, he was asked to deposit the stamp papers within a week. It is not disputed that the same were not deposited within a week therefrom. As claimed by the appellant, it was deposited on 31st March, 2003.
It is apt to note here that the High Court had directed status quo to be maintained for two months in C.W.P. No.13156 of 2003 on 27th March, 2003, but, eventually, the said writ petition was withdrawn on 8th August, 2003. Another writ petition was filed forming the subject matter of C.W.P. No.36791 of 2003, challenging the auction, and the High Court directed that the execution of the lease shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
When this was the situation, what cropped up is quite disturbing. A cavil arose with regard to deposit of stamp papers. The appellant in his turn produced the receipt obtained from the Additional District Magistrate and the State made an endeavour to negative it. There was no C.A.9/16 3 effort made by either of the parties to get documents from the Treasury wherefrom the stamp papers were purchased. We may note with profit that the Commissioner while allowing the revision of the appellant has opined that the documents were already on record. The same is not free from doubts as opined by the High Court. Be that as it may, the stamp papers of worth Rs.8.80 lacs can always be verified from the Treasury. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly agreed to the said position.
If the stamp papers have really been purchased and there is no fathomable reason that the appellant would not deposit the same before the authority concerned unless the same has been utilized in any other transactions. That can also be verified from the Treasury. If the stamp papers have been purchased, the appellant shall be entitled to get the earnest money and the stamp papers and that will be an equitable solution in the obtaining fact situation. The question of grant of lease at this distant of time would not be proper.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court. We direct the State Government to produce the documents from the Treasury and other authorities, if so required, to establish that such stamp papers were not purchased and if purchased, were utilized in any other C.A.9/16 4 transaction. It will be open to the High Court to call for any other documents in this regard. On conditions being satisfied, the amount shall be refunded to the appellant with interest which shall be determined by the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition within six months hence. Needless to say, if the mining area in question is put to question, the appellant can always participate. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................J. (Dipak Misra) ......................J. (Shiva Kirti Singh) New Delhi;
January 04, 2016.
C.A.9/165
ITEM NO.205 COURT NO.4 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.8449/2008 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/01/2008 in CMWP No. 56247/2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) DWARIKA PRASAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 04/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anurag Dube, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Meenal Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. for M/s. AP & J Chambers C.A.9/16 6 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)