M P LAKSHMAN Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an agreement-holder and he negotiated to purchase a property with the 4th respondent who was the owner of site No. 48 situated at 1st A cross, RMV Extension, bangalore, which measured 45' x 60' for a consideration of Rs. 16,20,000, Under the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, Form No. 37-1 was filed on 9th April, 1991, by the parties before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority on considering the application and finding that the value of the property was below the market value by 15 per cent proceeded to pass an order of pre-emptive purchase which is now challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act and sought for quashing of the impugned order issued by the authorities dt. 13th June, 1991, as per Annexure-C, It is pertinent to state here itself that the constitutional validity of the provisions questioned by the petitioner has been upheld and it was held constitutionally valid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautham v. Union of India 49 (1993 )DLT421 (SC ), [1993 ]199 ITR530 (SC ), JT1992 (6)SC 678 , 1992 (3 )SCALE138 , (1993 )1 SCC78. The learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute about the said fact, but contended that the other merits of the case have to be considered by this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) SRI Sarangan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed by the respondent-authorities under the provisions of the IT Act and hence the writ petition has to be allowed and the matter has to be remitted back to the concerned authority to reconsider the matter. On the other hand, sri M. V. Seshachala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities, has contended that all the contentions now raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are concluded by the above-cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and he has also cited certain other judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court on similar aspects.