Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of U.P. vs Harish Tandon on 6 January, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4755/2006
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARISH TANDON RESPONDENT(S)
[WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAYING THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
REGARDING EXEMPTION/REDUCTION IN STAMP DUTY AND STAY AND GRANTING
FURTHER TIME TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER
DATED 10.03.2015 AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND EXTENSION OF
TIME AND PERMISSION TO FILE SUBMISSION AND REVOCATION OF COURT'S
ORDER AND DISPOSING I.A. NO.6 AND PERMISSION TO PLEAD AND FILE
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT AND OFFICE REPORT]
Date : 06/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG, UP
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.G. Hasnain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv
Mr. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Parv K. Garg, Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2016.01.08
17:09:05 IST
Reason:
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order. Consequently, all pending applications stand disposed of.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4755/2006 STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS HARISH TANDON ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. The challenge in the present appeal by the State OF U.P. is to the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 30th March, 2006 by which directions have been issued to the effect that the conversion of Nazul Site Nos.32-C, 139 and 139-B, Civil Station, Allahabad from leasehold to freehold in favour of the respondent in the present appeal (writ petitioner in the High Court) should be made in terms of the Government Order No.1639(1)/9-AA-195-80--/86 dated 10th May, 1995.
2
2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed are summarized hereunder:
The respondent in the present appeal (writ petitioner) is the lessee of the aforesaid three plots situated in Civil Station, Allahabad. By Government Order dated 23rd May, 1992, a policy was formulated for conversion of leasehold rights of Nazul land into freehold in respect of residential lease on the basis of the circle rate as on 30th November, 1991. By subsequent G.O. No.3632 dated 2nd December, 1992, different rates were prescribed in respect of residential and commercial land for its conversion from leasehold to freehold. The rates of conversion were stipulated as 50% of the aforesaid circle rate for residential leases and 150% of the aforesaid circle rate for commercial leases.
3
3. In the year 1993, to be precise on 22nd May, 1993, the respondent filed three applications for conversion of the leasehold rights held by him in respect of aforesaid Nazul plots to freehold. Final demand notices were issued for all the three plots on 6th June, 1995. The respondent did not comply with the said demand. At about this time another G.O. dated 10th May, 1995 was issued by the State Government for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold of plots/buildings allotted under various schemes by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities governed by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
4. The G.O. dated 23rd May, 1992 referred to above, as applicable to Nazul 4 land, was amended by a fresh G.O. dated 1st December, 1998 which, inter alia, provided (clause 1.3) that applicants to whom demand letters have been earlier issued and have not deposited any money and yet wish to come under the G.O. in question are required to re-apply. The respondent instead of making any application under the G.O. dated 1st December, 1998 challenged the same in the writ petition in which the impugned order has been passed, as noticed above. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
5. We have heard Shri Irshad Ahmad, learned AAG, U.P. for the appellants and Shri Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5
6. The G.O. dated 23rd May, 1992 as amended in 1998 (1st December, 1998) ex facie apply to Nazul land whereas the G.O. of 1995 (10th May, 1995) apply to lands vested in the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities. We have noticed the difference in the modes by which the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities could be vested with the right to land under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 i.e. by means of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or by transfer of Nazul land vested in the State (which is further allotted in different plot sizes to allottees) and also the land leased to the respondent – writ petitioner as Nazul land and held by the said respondent on the basis of such lease. It is on account of the difference in the mode and manner in which such Nazul land vests in the State 6 and are further leased to lessees like the respondent – writ petitioner and the lands that vest in the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities which are subsequently allotted that the two G.Os. prescribe two distinct modes for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights. The basis on which the High Court tried to obliterate the aforesaid difference, in our considered view, was not a correct approach. The High Court, according to us, had faulted in taking the view that for a common purpose, namely, conversion of leasehold right to freehold right there cannot be two different prescriptions prescribing two different sets of fees/charges and any such position would be contrary to Article 14. The basis of the land-holding by the State (Nazul land) and the land vested in the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and 7 Development Authorities being distinct and different, as noticed above, two different prescriptions containing two different rates/charges of conversion would not be opposed to the mandate prescribed by Article 14.
7. We, therefore, take the view that the High Court was not correct in directing that the conversion of the respondent – writ petitioner's leasehold rights to freehold should be governed by the G.O. of 1995 which admittedly apply to the leases granted by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Development Authorities.
8. Consequently and for the reasons above, we set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. However, transposing the case to the appropriate point of time, 8 we direct the respondent - writ petitioner, if he so chooses, to apply within a period of 30 days from today for conversion of leasehold Nazul land to freehold. The same may be considered by the State Government in accordance with the G.O. dated 1st December, 1998.
9. The appeal stands allowed subject to what has been indicated above. Consequently, all pending applications stand disposed of.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI JANUARY 06, 2016