2007 (1) TMI 573 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mix-up of identities between Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4.
2. Impersonation by the office bearers of Respondent No.2 as those of Respondent No.4.
3. Suppression of facts before the High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 3082 and 3781 of 1991.

Summary:

Issue 1: Mix-up of Identities
The High Court found that there was a mix-up of identities between Respondent No.2 (Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Gandhi Nagar) and Respondent No.4 (Sumangalam Cooperative Housing Society, Bodakdev). Respondent No.2's registration was canceled on 9.12.1996, while Respondent No.4 was registered on 5.07.1990.

Issue 2: Impersonation
The High Court concluded that Respondent No.4 impersonated Respondent No.2 to obtain possession of land from AUDA at a price determined in 1987, which was before Respondent No.4 came into existence. This impersonation led to Respondent No.4 securing land at an undervalued rate and suppressing this fact in earlier proceedings before the High Court.

Issue 3: Suppression of Facts
The High Court noted that Respondent No.4 suppressed the fact that it had obtained possession of land based on payments made by Respondent No.2. This suppression resulted in the judgment dated 24.09.1991, which was secured by practicing fraud on the court.

High Court's Findings:
- Respondent No.4 secured allotment of land at the price determined in 1987 while it actually came into existence on 5th July 1990.
- Out of 54 members who were allotted plots by Respondent No.4, 42 persons had also been allotted plots by the Government at Gandhi Nagar.
- Respondent No.4 had taken possession of the land on the basis that it had 77 members while it had distributed plots only amongst 54 persons.

Valuation:
Dr. Roshan H. Namavati, an approved valuer, determined the fair market value of the properties in question as of 1.3.1990. His valuation contradicted the High Court's conclusion regarding undervaluation, stating that the fair market value was Rs. 1,10,66,760.

Supreme Court's Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's valuation method had no basis and that the value at which the transfer was made was not less than the market price. The appeals were allowed, and the observations made against various officials were deemed uncalled for and deleted. The appeals were allowed with no orders as to cost, and appreciation was recorded for the assistance rendered by Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae.