DURGA DASS UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of twoapplications, one by the petitioner (CM 5297/88) and the second by the 4threspondent (CM 5535/88).

(2.) The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of theappropriate atuhority dated 7.11.1988 made under sub-section (1) or Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The appropriate authority is constituted under S. 269 UB of the Act. By this orderthe appropriate authority held that the property in question was fit forpurchase by the Central Government. The property is a plot of land bearingNo. 22, situated at Road No. 61, punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and measures552.78 sq. yds. The petitioner as purchaser and the 4th respondent as theseller entered into an agreement for transfer of this property for a consideration of Rs. 28,19,178.00 and the purchaser at that time paid a sumof Rs. 10 lakhs to the 4th respondent. A statement of transfer of immovableproperty as required under Sec. 269UC was filed before the appropriateauthority, in Form 37-1 as perscribed, which on examination of the samecame to the conclusion that the property be purchased by the CentralGovernment at an amount equivalent to the amount of 'apparent consideration' which was the consideration for which the 4th respondentagreed to sell the property to the petitioner. This order is under challengein the Act writ petition. The petitioner has prayed that Chap. XXC of thecontaining Ss. 269U to 269 UO be declared unconstitutional and thatrespondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be restrained from taking any action in termsof the order passed under S. 269UD(1) of the Act by the appropriateauthority. These are four respondents. The first is the Central Government,second is the appropriate authority and the third is the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. The 4th respondent, as noted above, is the owner of theproperty in question.

(3.) When the writ petition came up for admission. Rule D.B., wasissued and by way of interim order it was directed that respondents Nos. 1to 3 would not pay the consideration till further orders and status quowas also directed to be maintained. This was on the application of thepetitioner. Then the 4th respondent also filed an application. He prayed formodification of the interim orders and stated that he was prepared to sellthe property either to the Central Government or to the petitioner in termsof the agreement to sell dated 10.9.1988 which he had entered into withthe petitioner and on receipt by him of the balance of the sale consideration.In the alternative, he also prayed that the petitioner be directed to payinterest at the rate of 24% per annum on the balance of the considerationif he is not directed to be paid the balance of the sale consideration.