A K GARG Vs. KAILASH NATH AND ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No.1 and 4 in the titled writ petition, in their respective applications, being CM Nos. 11681/01 and 12908/01 seek modification of the order, dated 5/10/2001, passed by this Court, while disposing of petitioners' application (CM 9134/01). Since the modification/directions sought for in the applications are in substance similar, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) To understand and appreciate the controversy raised in the applications, it would be necessary to note a few background facts. Respondent No.1, a builder (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) had entered into an agreement dated 25/06/1991 with the petitioners (hereinafter referred to the vendees) for the sale of residential flat No.2 on the 4th Floor of the multistoreyed building known as Neelgiri Apartments, situated at 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The vendor and the vendees filed a statement in form No.37-I prescribed under Rule 48-L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and as required under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Appropriate Authority under the Act, respondent No.4 herein, vide order dated 28/05/1993, decided to purchase the said flat and, thus, passed the order under Section 269-UD(1) of the Act. The vendees challenged the said order by filing the present writ petition, inter alia, assailing the order on the plea of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 269-UG of the Act. The writ petition was finally disposed on 17/12/1997 [Since reported as Mrs. Kailash Suneja and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1998) 231 ITR 318 at page 392], wherein the order passed by the Appropriate Authority was quashed, while holding so, K.Ramamoorthy, J. did not go into the question of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 269-UG of the Act but Y.K.Sabharwal, J. (as his Lordship then was) accepted the plea and held that the balance sale consideration was tendered by the Central Government to the vendor on 6/09/1993, which was beyond the stipulated period under Section 269-UG(1), thereby attracting the rigours of Section 269-UH, resulting in the abrogation of the purchase order. The Appropriate Authority unsuccessfully challenged the said order in the Supreme Court in its appeal (Civil Appeal No.6048/98) which was dismissed on 4/05/2001, upholding the view taken by Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(3.) According to the vendees, on the dismissal of the said appeal by the Supreme Court, they wrote to the Appropriate Authority to deliver to them possession of the property but having failed to get any response thereto they filed an application (CM 9134/2001), seeking a direction to the Appropriate Authority to accept Rs.23.10 lakhs, the amount paid by it to the vendor and to hand over physical possession of the property to them. The application was disposed of by this Court on 5/10/2001 with the following order: Heard. On payment of the balance apparent consideration to the authorities within two weeks from today, possession of the property in question shall be handed over to the vendee, petitioner in the writ petition. If the Department has any claim regarding interest sofar as the vendor is concerned, it is open to it to take action as is available in law. Though a stand was taken by learned counsel for the respondent that physical possession was not handed over, we find this stand to be clearly untenable in view of what has been stated in order dated 16th March, 1994. Iff any other amount is payable by the vendee to the vendor, that is a question with which we are not presently concerned. Application stands disposed of.