NATVARLAL DAYARJIBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the order dt. 27th Oct., 1994 (Annexure A) to the petition passed by Appropriate Authority, respondent No. 2 herein by which an order was passed in exercise of the power under s. 269UD(1) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 owned a plot of land admeasuring 675 sq. yds. situate at Maninagar, Ahmedabad, on which seven shops were constructed. All the shops were let out to different tenants and they were in possession since many years. The petitioner was also one of the tenants. Since respondent No. 3 was willing to sell the property and the petitioner was one of the sitting tenants, the petitioner was interested in buying the property. An agreement to sell was, therefore, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 on 21st July, 1994 for an amount of Rs. 13.13 lacs. The agreement is annexed to the petition. As the total sale consideration exceeded Rs. 10 lacs, it was necessary to fill in Form No. 37 I as required under s. 269UC(3) of the Act. The Appropriate Authority issued show cause notice on 14th Oct., 1994, calling upon the transferor and transferee as to why the property should not be compulsorily purchased, inter alia, alleging that considering two sale instances referred to in the notice, "apparent and discounted" consideration of property under consideration was underestimated by more than 15%. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 were, therefore, called upon to show cause why an order under S. 269UD(1) of the Act should not be passed. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 replied the said show cause notice on 21st Oct., 1994. In reply, it was contended that the main road frontage of property under consideration was occupied by seven tenants since last more than 30 years. It was not liability of the vendor to get those tenants evicted. It was also stated that since the purchaser was one of the tenants that he had purchased the property. So far as Sales Instance Property 1 (SIP 1) was concerned, it was submitted that there was a very small room on the back side of plot which did not affect development. Regarding Sales Instance Property 2 (SIP 2), it was mentioned that it was not in commercial zone but was wrongly mentioned in the show cause notice that it was in commercial zone. In view of the above reasons, it was contended by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 that it was not a case to acquire property under S. 269UD(1) of the Act and notice was liable to be revoked. After considering the reply, the Appropriate Authority passed the impugned order. In paras 4 and 5, it was stated as under :

(3.) IN affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of the respondent, the deponent took into account the fact regarding sitting tenants in property under consideration but has stated as under :