SHIVRAM VISHWANATH DESHMUKH Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved seeking enforcement and compliance of directions made in the judgment and order passed by this Court on 12th April, 2004 in Special Civil Application No. 2171 of 1997, Special Civil Application No. 3399 of 1997 and Special Civil Application No. 8606 of 1996.

(2.) THE petitioners, as owners of property entered into an agreement to sell on 25th Jan., 1996, and in pursuance thereof filed Form No. 37 -1 as required by provisions of Section 269UC of Chapter XX -C of the IT Act, 1961 {the Act). The Appropriate Authority acting under provisions of the said Chapter ordered purchase of the property. The said order came to be challenged by the purchasers (SCA No. 8606 of 1996) and by the vendors i.e., the present petitioners (SCA No. 2171 of 1997). The petitions came to be admitted. During course of the pendency of the petitions, the purchase price which was received from the Central Government was deposited with a scheduled bank in a fixed deposit receipt and the said fact has come on record vide letter dt. 8th April, 2004 from the Dy. CIT, Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, addressed to the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. As per the said letter, an amount of Rs. 2,40,00,000 was initially released by the Central Government and due to the dispute regarding apportionment between the vendors and the purchasers, kept in a fixed deposit on and from 30th Oct., 1996. It is further an admitted position that the fixed deposit receipt was renewed periodically and on the last date of renewal i.e., 7th Feb., 2004 the amount had swelled to Rs. 5,34,81,261. The renewal made on 7th Feb., 2004 was for a period of 01 (one) year.

(3.) THEREAFTER , it appears that there was some delay in payment and exchange of correspondence between the parties as regards the payment to be made and ultimately the petitioners as well as the purchasers were paid the respective amounts of Rs. 115 lakhs and Rs. 125 lakhs, respectively, under cover of letter dt. 21st June, 2004. As the respondent failed to pay interest despite directions of the Court, the petitioners called upon the respondent to make the payment. Having failed to elicit a positive response, the present petition has been moved by the vendor -petitioners.