The Delhi government has powers to fix the circle rates of the agricultural land but it has to seek concurrence of the Lieutenant Governor (LG), the Supreme Court on Thursday held.
The decision on circle rate cannot be implemented without referring it to the LG by the Council of Ministers, the top court said.
It said that the LG is not expected to differ routinely with the decision of council of minister and "difference should be on cogent and strong reasons".
A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, deciding on six vexatious issues pertaining to a long-running feud between the central and the national capital governments, said that circle rates are fixed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and therefore it does not pertain to right over land.
It unanimously upheld the view of the Delhi High Court that the contentious notification dated August 4, 2015 for revising circle rates in national capital was issued under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act and Delhi Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2007.
"Circle rates are fixed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. Therefore, they do not pertain to land namely rights in or over land, land tenures etc. or transfer of alienation of agricultural land etc. Stamp duty is not a duty on instrument but it is in reality a duty on transfer of property," it said.
The bench said that the said decision cannot be implemented without referring the same to the LG in the first instance.
More From This Section
"More pertinently, the decision here touches upon the governance of the UT. Therefore, we agree with the conclusion of the High Court that views of LG should have been taken before issuing circular dated August 4, 2015," the bench said.
Referring to the concurrence of LG, the top court said that "normally, and generally, the LG is expected to honour the wisdom of the council of ministers. He is also expected to clear the files expeditiously and is not supposed to sit over it unduly".
It said, "He (LG) is under duty to bear in mind expediency and urgency of the subject matter of the decisions taken by the GNCTD, wherever situation so demands. That in fact is the facet of good governance. Likewise , the executive is also expected to give due deference to the unique nature of the role assigned to the LG in the Constitutional scheme".
Terming it as mutual respect between the two organs of the state, the bench said, "Both should realise that they are here to serve the people of NCTD. Mutual cooperation, thus, becomes essential for the effective working of the system".
The bench said that under the provisions of law, the LG is also empowered to form its opinion on any matter which may be different from the decision taken by his ministers.
"Any matter does not mean each and every matter or every trifling matter but only those rare and exceptional matters where the difference is so fundamental to the governance of the Union Territory that it deserved to be escalated to the President. Therefore, the LG is not expected to differ routinely with the decision of Council of Minister. Difference should be on cogent and strong reasons," it added.
The court said that in case of any contingencies where LG and his ministers may differ then in such circumstances, LG is supposed to refer the matter to the President for decision and act accordingly.
"It means that final say, in case of different between LG and Council of Ministers, is that of the President," it said.
The bench gave unanimous verdict on five counts and ruled that the Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) cannot probe the Centre's employees in corruption cases.
The top court gave a split verdict on one major issue of control on posting and transfer of bureaucrats in the national capital administration and referred it to larger bench.