2010 Supreme(SC) 214

2010 (2) Supreme 457
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
State of Haryana & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Manoj Kumar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010
[Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26684 of 2008]
Decided on : 9-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited “to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.

Headnote:Constitution of India ,1950-Article 227- Section 47-A of the Haryana Amendment to Stamp Act-Appeal against the judgment passed by High Court by which the High Court had set aside concurrent findings of courts below while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India-Case of appellants, that High Court failed to appreciate that respondent had intentionally evaded payment of true stamp duty- The circle rate or collector rate for the sale of commercial plot of 788 sq.yards was Rs.5,13,050/- whereas the respondent paid only Rs.31,000/-.Held High Court, in impugned judgment, had erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact of courts below under its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution-High Court gravely erred in not properly comprehending the facts of case in proper perspective and which had led to grave miscarriage of justice- No dispute that the commercial plot of 788 sq.yards located at Delhi-Mathura Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad was valued by Circle rate at Rs.4,200 per sq. yard fixed by the Collector of Faridabad - In the impugned judgment, High Court had not properly construed observations of District Collector, Faridabad in which he had clearly stated that the suit had been filed in Civil Court and decree passed with the intention to avoid tax and stamp duty to be paid to the Government, because when respondent had paid entire sale consideration to the vendor, then he should have got the sale deed also executed at that time, whereas the same had not been done-Hence held that sale deed had been registered for less value- This order was upheld by the Commissioner-High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 had set aside the orders passed by District Collector, Faridabad and upheld by Commissioner, Gurgaon without any basis or rationale- In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned judgment of High Court could not be sustained -Order passed by District Collector, Faridabad which was upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon restored- Direction given to respondent to pay balance stamp duty - Appeal allowed and disposed of. (Paras 36 to 43)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by High Court by which the High Court had set aside concurrent findings of courts below while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held High Court, in impugned judgment, had erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact of courts below under its limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. High Court erroneously observed that the “the authenticity of the decree passed by the court cannot be questioned.Therefore, the genuineness of the sale price has to be presumed.” . This finding of High Court could not be sustained. It would have far reaching ramifications and Consequences. If the genuineness of the sale price entered into by the buyer and the seller cannot be questioned, then in majority of the cases it is unlikely that the State would ever receive the stamp duty according to the circle rate or the collector rate. Approach of High Court held totally unrealistic.High Court in the impugned judgment had also erroneously observed that “there cannot be any opportunity with vendee to fabricate an agreement of sale for showing incorrect sale price because the litigating parties would not ordinarily reach such an agreement and sign the fabricated document.”. High Court gravely erred in not properly comprehending the facts of case in proper perspective and which had led to grave miscarriage of justice. No dispute that the commercial plot of 788 sq.yards located at Delhi-Mathura Mewla Maharajpur, Faridabad was valued by Circle rate at Rs.4,200 per sq. yard fixed by the Collector of Faridabad .In the impugned judgment, High Court had not properly construed observations of District Collector, Faridabad in which he had clearly stated that the suit had been filed in Civil Court and decree passed with the intention to avoid tax and stamp duty to be paid to the Government, because when respondent had paid entire sale consideration to the vendor, then he should have got the sale deed also executed at that time, whereas the same had not been done.Hence held that sale deed had been registered for less value. This order was upheld by the Commissioner.High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 had set aside the orders passed by District Collector, Faridabad and upheld by Commissioner, Gurgaon without any basis or rationale. In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned judgment of High Court could not be sustained .Order passed by District Collector, Faridabad which was upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon was restored. Direction was given to respondent to pay balance stamp duty .Appeal was allowed and disposed of.

       Result : Appeal allowed.