RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the legality of the order dated March 30, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), directing preemptive purchase of the ground floor of the house bearing No. D -203, defense Colony, New Delhi.

(2.) THE background facts, relevant for the purpose of dealing with the present petition, are as follows : On December 22, 1992, the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the aforenoted property for a total consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs with respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendor'). As per the agreement, the vendor was paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 by way of earnest money and the balance amount of Rs. 18,50,000 was to be paid at the time of registration of the conveyance deed with the Registrar of Assurances, New Delhi. A statement in Form No. 37 -1 under rule 48L of the Income -tax Rules, 1962, along with an agreement to sell was filed with the appropriate authority on January 4, 1993, seeking 'no objection certificate' from the said authority. Upon consideration of the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner, the appropriate authority came to the conclusion that the apparent consideration is very low as compared to the market value of the subject property and thus, exercising power vested in it under Section 269UD(1) of the Act, vide impugned order, ordered the purchase of the subject property by the Central Government. The said order has been challenged in the writ petition. Besides the vendor, the Union of India and the appropriate authority, have been arrayed as respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.

(3.) THE application is resisted by the appropriate authority. The vendor has chosen to keep quiet. While opposing the application as not maintainable it is stated in the reply affidavit that since the vendor did not consent to receive the apparent consideration, the same was deposited by the Chief Commissioner with the appropriate authority on April 30, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of Section 269UG(3) of the Act. It is emphasised that though the transferee, being the intending purchaser, may be entitled, by way of restitution or compensation, to claim the refund of the earnest money and advance paid by him to the transferor but he is not entitled to claim refund by way of tender of such amount by the Central Government under Section 269UG(1) of the Act. It is thus pleaded that there was no question of tendering any amount to the petitioner as claimed by him.