POONAM JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was an agreement to sell House No. B-1/14, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 20 Lakhs. The petitioner paid Rs. 2 Lakhs by way of earnest money and balance of of Rs. 18 Lakhs was payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The statement of transfer was furnished by the petitioner as required under section 269UC of the Income Tax Act. The Central Government, by the impugned order dated May 18, 1987, decided to purchase this property at an amount equal to the apparent consoderation. The provisions of section 269UC were challenged as ultra virus the Constitution. The writ petition has been admitted. An ex parte stay of the operation of the impunged order was granted on June 10, 1987. An application for modification of the order was moved by Income Tax department and that came up for hearing on June 26, 1987. An order was passed affecting the rights of respondent No. 3 without notice to him. That order has been recalled. All these applications are for disposal after notice.

(2.) Respondent No. 3 was asked by order dated June 2, 1987, to surrender or deliver possession of the property to the Central Government under section 269UC of the said Act. The transferor or any other person who may be in possession of the immovable property in respect of which an order under sub-section (1) of section 269UC has been made has to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the appropriate authority within 15 days of the service of the order on him. Respondent No. 3 offered to give possession and the Income Tax Department actually took possession of the property on June 10, 1987. The stay order made by this court on the writ petition staying the operation of the impugned order dated May 18, 1987, was also granted on June 10, 1987. By the modification of the order dated June 26, 1987, it has been ordered that the Income Tax authorities need not pay either the seller or the purchaser the amount of the purchase price of the property as appearing from the documents of sale and as required by the State. Respondent No. 3 has, Therefore, not been paid the apparent consideration.

(3.) In other cases, this court has taken the view that the rights of the writ petitioner as well as the Government would be prejudiced by directing the Government to pay over to the seller the amount of consideration in respect of the purchase of the property and the status quo has been maintained in those cases. In this case the Government has slightly changed the position by taking over possession of the property on June 10, 1987.