GURUDATT VILLA ASSOCIATION Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Mihir Thakor instructed by R.P. Bhatt and Co. appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. N.R. Divetia, appears for respondent No. 2 and waives service of Rule on his behalf. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside order Annex. G and H passed by Appropriate Authority, respondent No. 1 herein under S. 269UE(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") being illegal, ultra vires and contrary to law.

(3.) THE second respondent submitted his reply, on 28th March, 1995, to the show cause notice wherein he clarified that PUC was located near Usmanpura village which was much interior to the main Ashram Road. It was nearer to the old Vadaj where commercial development was comparatively less than the area covered between Paldi and IT office. Reliance was also placed on comparable sale instances. It was stated that the property of Budhalal Trust being S.P. No. 287, F.P. No. 287, T.P.S. 15 of Champaner Society, Near Usmanpura Char Rasta, was sold at the rate of Rs. 2,471 per sq. mt. and that valuation was accepted by the authorities. The property situated at S.P.B/2, F.P. 23/B/part belonged to Smt. Shardaben and others was sold as per agreement dt. 16th June, 1994, at the rate of Rs. 6,041. It was submitted that the property quoted for comparison by the first respondent in the show cause notice was situated on the main road in Madhuram Society which was highly developed commercial area. That sale instance was hence not comparable. In the light of all the facts and circumstances mentioned in the reply, it was prayed that it was a fit case to allow the transfer of property as mentioned in Form 37 I of the application. It was, therefore, prayed to issue necessary certificate in accordance with law. A reply was also filed by the petitioner on 29th March, 1995, contending therein that no reasonable time was granted to the petitioners. It was also stated that PUC was interior to the Ashram Road and was residential while the Authority has compared it with highly developed commercial area which was not proper. Finally, it was stated that after considering all the attending circumstances fair market value was determined in accordance with law. It was, therefore, prayed that necessary certificate should be issued.