GIAN DEVI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise common and identical issues and therefore they are being disposed of together.

(2.) THE challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 25.01.1994 under section 269UD (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). By virtue of the impugned order the appropriate authority had come to the conclusion that the apparent consideration of the property in question was under stated by 27%, as compared to the property at E-23 East of Kailash, New Delhi, and by 33%, when compared to the property at E-124, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Consequently, the order for pre-emptive purchase of the property in question under section 269UD (1) of the said Act was passed.

(3.) SEVERAL points were urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. First of all, they stated that the so-called comparable instances were not comparable at all. Secondly, it was contended that once the DDA had fixed the market value of the land while computing the unearned increase, that value was binding and if that value was to be taken, there was no question of the difference in the apparent consideration being less than the fair market value by more than 15%. In fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fair market value arrived at on the basis of the DDA computation would be even less than the apparent consideration. Thirdly, it was contended that the respondent had ignored the sale instance of another property just across the road being E-227, East of Kailash, New Delhi, which had been sold for a consideration of Rs.16 lakh on 29.08.1986. The size of the property was 500 Sq. Yrds. Fourthly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the methodology adopted for computing the market value of the comparable property was also wrong.