SAKHUBAI RAJU SHINDE Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are the owners of land admeasuring 5999.96 square metres of survey No. 9/5/B/l at Kothrud in P.M.C. area in Pune (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"), have challenged the order dated April 28, 1993, at exhibit E and the order dated October 14, 2005, at exhibit L respectively, for compulsory purchase and possession passed by the Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Alternatively, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to pay consideration in terms of fair market value on the date of taking possession and not as per the purchase price of 1993. The facts as stated briefly are that on July 21, 1987, petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 executed a general power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 8, a registered partnership firm, to deal with the subject land. By an order dated March 22, 1988, the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"), declared the subject land to be excess vacant land. On March 31, 1987, petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 made an application to the State Government for exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act in respect of the subject land, which came to be sanctioned by an order dated October 10, 1990. Petitioner No. 8 entered into agreement of assignment on May 13, 1992, with M/s. Ellora Constructions for development and sale of the subject land for a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs. In respect of the said agreement of assignment, the petitioners filed their statement in Form No. 37-1 of the Act. Respondent No. 1-Appropriate Authority passed order dated July 31, 1992, under section 269UD(1) of the Act declaring its intention to purchase the subject land for a net consideration of Rs. 17,08,169. Initially, M/s. Ellora Construction challenged the said order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1992 which came to be disposed of on April 1, 1993, by directing the Appropriate Authority to initiate proceedings in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C B. Gautam v. Union of India, 1993 199 ITR 530.

(2.) Pursuant to the order passed by the Bombay High Court, on April 28, 1993, the Appropriate Authority passed a fresh order under section 269UD(1) of the Act holding that the property is undervalued and is fit for preemptive purchase and determined the net consideration payable by the Central Government at Rs. 17,08,169 including Rs. 2,75,000 payable to the transferee as earnest money. By an order dated May 4, 1993, the Appropriate Authority observed that on April 28, 1993, the subject land has vested in the Central Government under section 269UE(1) of the Act and ordered the transferor to deliver vacant possession on May 17, 1993, of the property free from all encumbrances to the person authorised by it. Against the aforesaid order dated April 28, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under section 269UD(1) of the Act, M/s. Ellora Construction filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No. 1822 of 1993, wherein a Division Bench of the said court granted stay of further proceedings in connection with the order dated April 28, 1993. The petitioners herein were respondents Nos. 8 and 9(a) to (g) in the said petition. By an order dated September 20, 2005, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that M/s. Ellora Construction which claimed to have been put in possession of the property as developer has no locus stand to maintain the writ petition.

(3.) In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioners had also instituted a suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 192 of 2004, in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Civil Division, Pune, for cancellation of the deed of assignment and for a declaration that the order dated April 28, 1993, for compulsory acquisition is null and void. Upon dismissal of the above referred writ petition, the first respondent passed an order dated October 14, 2005, for execution of the order passed under section 269UE(2) of the Act on May 4, 1993, calling upon the transferor to deliver vacant possession of the subject property, which came to be communicated to the petitioners by a letter dated October 18, 2005. On October 19, 2005, the petitioners filed objections to the said order praying that the same be cancelled forthwith.