RANCHHODBHAI GALABHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the Appropriate Authority under S. 269UD of Chapter XX C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity).

(2.) ON 9th April, 1994, petitioner No. 1 (transferor) and petitioner No. 2 (transferee) entered into an agreement for sale in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 4000 sq. mts. situated within the limits of village Ravat. Tal. Haveli, District Pune, for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000. On 14th Sept., 1994, the petitioners filed Form No. 37 I in the office of the Appropriate Authority. On 12th Dec., 1994 show cause notice was issued by the Appropriate Authority under S. 269UD(1A) of the Act to the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners reply dt. 17th Dec., 1994 was submitted by the Chartered Accountants. The Appropriate Authority thereafter passed the impugned order dt. 26th Dec., 1994, Annexure A to the petition. The petitioners thereafter filed rectification application dt. 19th Jan., 1995 and also filed supplementary submissions before the Appropriate Authority on 17th May, 1995. The Competent Authority by its order dt. 30th June, 1995 rejected the rectification application of the petitioners. The aforesaid order dt. 26th Dec., 1994 passed under S. 269UD(1A) of the Act and the order dt. 30th June, 1995 rejecting the rectification application, have been challenged in this petition by the transferor as well as the transferee.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from total non application of mind because the SIP is not comparable with the PUC. The SIP is in commercial zone whereas the PUC is in residential zone. Out of 4000 sq. mts. of the land in question 3000 sq. mts. land was the subject matter of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act). The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the Authority under the ULC Act had granted exemption in respect of the aforesaid 3000 sq. mts. of land subject to the condition that petitioner No. 1 was required to construct 51 tenements for sale to weaker section and 4 tenements were required to be sold to the Government of Maharashtra. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the PUC could never be expected to fetch as much price as the SIP. It was, therefore, strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Appropriate Authority had not determined the fair market value of the land in question and, therefore, there was no question of any undervaluation.