RATILAL H. NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to make correction in the prayer clause. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents, particularly the appropriate authority (under Chapter XX -C of the Income -tax Act, 1961), Ahmedabad to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the apparent consideration amount for the period from 31.7.1992 till 3.12.1992 when the petitioner was paid apparent consideration of Rs.30,56,218/ - after certain deductions. The claim is made under sub -section (4) of Section 269UG of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short].

(2.) THE petitioner was the owner of the property situated at Ahmedabad for which the petitioner executed an agreement to sell on 12.5.1992 for a sum of Rs.47,34,400/ -. The petitioner filed the form under Section 269UC on 25.5.1992 and the appropriate authority at Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, passed the order under Section 269UD(1) for acquiring the property in question after deducting Rs.71,491/ - by way of discount for accelerated payment. On 5.8.1992, the appropriate authority demanded possession and on 14.8.1992 the petitioner handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question to the appropriate authority. On 19.8.1992, Ramdulara R Chauhan, claiming to be a lawful tenant of the property in question, filed a suit in the Small Causes Court for a declaration that he was lawful tenant in a part of the property in question. On 27.8.1992, the amount of apparent consideration after deduction of the discounting amount came to be deposited with the appropriate authority's account. On the same day, State Bank of India filed a summary suit for invoking the guarantee given by the petitioner in connection with another transaction for a sum of Rs.5.75 lakhs. On 28.8.1992, the the petitioner lodged his objections against the order dated 31.7.1992. On 2.9.1992, the appropriate authority deposited the consideration in a separate account under Section 269UG of the Act. On 3.9.1992, the petitioner objected to the amount being deposited in the separate account instead of the same being paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner's forms under the Urban Land Ceiling Act also came to be cleared. On 6.10.1992, the trial Court passed consent order under which an arrangement was arrived at for payment of the amount due and payable by the petitioner to State Bank of India to be paid directly by the appropriate authority to the Bank out of the apparent consideration payable by the appropriate authority to the petitioner. On 22.10.1992, Ramdulara R Chauhan withdrew the suit filed by him regarding tenancy rights. Between 23.10.1992 and 30.11.1992, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority from time to time for paying over the apparent consideration to the petitioner. The appropriate authority made the following payments : -

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the department has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in view of the following submissions : -