Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

54. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative raised the point that why the seller has awaited for the balance heavy amount till 1981. A prudent businessman cannot leave the amount without any interest for a long period specially when the deal was finalised. But we don't agree with the views of learned Departmental Representative for the reason that there might be litigation, commercial hardship if the transaction was genuine.

55. However, from the record, it appears that from the proceedings of Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha dt. 28th Oct., 1986 pp. 770 to 782, a question was asked about the affairs of the appellant-society. In reply, it was submitted that in the year 1980-82, this society originally formed for members of SC/ST but later it was taken over by non SC/ST members in an unconstitutional manner. It was also submitted that the activities pertaining to the transaction of the land was commenced sometime between 1980-82 when Shri K.M. Jain became the office-bearer. Till 1979, Shri K.M. Jain was not holding any effective official position in the appellant-society but in the impugned agreement dt. 2nd Oct., 1974 he has signed on behalf of the appellant-society, so it indicates that the agreement was a backdated agreement. In this context, we would like to refer the assessment order dt. 12th March, 1996 of M/s Jai Marwar Co. (P) Ltd. (seller). In para 4 of the assessment order (p. 146 paper book), it was mentioned that "the assessee-company had executed an agreement to sell the land on 2nd Oct., 1974 and this sale agreement is duly signed by Shri Manvender Singh, managing director, and two other directors of the company. On 2nd Oct., 1974, Shri M. Singh was not the managing director of the company.

61. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, it appears that the said impugned agreement dt.:2nd Oct., 1974 was not genuine and is a backdated document.

62. To our mind, what might have happened in this case can honestly be presumed that, soon after knowing that land is likely to be acquired under the Ceiling Act sometime in 1980, the: seller might have been advised that the only safest way to save the land from the clutches of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976, is to show that the land was already sold to some registered group housing society. To escape the applicability of the Land Ceiling Act, both the parties entered into backdated agreement dt. 2nd Oct., 1974, and they had chosen the date of the public holiday. The said agreement was signed by Shri K.M. Jain who was holding the office at the relevant time in the year of 1980. But he has forgotten that prior to 1979 he was not holding any effective official position in the appellant-society. He committed this mistake by showing himself in the office on 2nd Oct., 1974. In fact, he was not authorised to do so ex post facto activity. By making this impugned agreement as launching pad, a subsequent agreement was made on 7th July, 1981 which is known as the substituted agreement of the original agreement dt. 2nd Oct., 1974. Later on, various litigations were started in different Courts pertaining to the Ceiling Act and ultimately the land was escaped from the clutches of Ceiling Act. One or two interested persons have also entered into litigation in their individual capacity as somewhere mentioned above.

63. In these circumstances, we are of the firm view that the impugned agreement dt. 2nd Oct., 1974 is a backdated document which was concocted by both the parties and the said agreement cannot be used as a launching pad. When this agreement was not genuine, obviously the subsequent agreement entered into dt. 7th July, 1981, has become irrelevant. The said agreement was presented for registration on 1st Feb., 1982 in the form of sale deed but the same was not registered due to the proceedings of Ceiling Act. Ultimately, the said agreement was registered on 26th July, 1984 and soon after, acquisition proceedings were started by the Department.