GANGADHAR ALIAS TATYA SHED BHAWANRAO Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , one of the co -owners of the property situated at Pune City, being interested person in the property, has challenged in this petition the decision rendered on 24th Feb., 1995 by the Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, exercising the powers under Chapter XX -C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for pre -emptive purchase of the property under s. 269UD(1) of the Act.

(2.) IT appears from the contentions raised in the petition that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are co -owners while respondent No. 3 is a developer who entered into a development agreement only with the respondent No. 2 on 16th Nov., 1994, vide Annexure 'A'. The said agreement was submitted before the Appropriate Authority along with Form No. 37 -I of the Act. The Appropriate Authority opted to purchase the property and sought possession thereof. The respondent No. 2 was claiming that he is the absolute owner of the property in question which was owned by the late Bhavanarao Panth and one of the common descendants of the said Bhavanarao Panth raised dispute and a suit for declaration and partition was filed, being Civil Suit No. 281 of 1973 and First Appeal No. 116/87 arising from the decree passed in the said suit is pending before the High Court at Bombay. It also transpires that before the Bombay High Court, vide order dt. 26th Feb., 1987, Annexure 'C', the respondent No. 2 has given an undertaking not to dispose of the property or to create any third party interest. However, respondent No. 2 being interested in seeing that the petitioner suffers, entered into a development agreement with respondent No. 3 and entrusted upon the respondent No. 3 the development rights in respect of the property in question together (with) all other incidental rights thereof.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that in view of the agreement executed by and in between respondents No. 2 and 3, respondent No. 1, under Chapter XX -C of the Act scrutinised the form and the respondent No. 1 held that the consideration shown therein is less than the value of the property, and passed an order on 24th Feb., 1996 for compulsory purchase under s. 269UD of the Act, which is followed by another order dt. 24th Feb., 1995 under s. 269UE(2) of the Act, Annexure 'E', requiring the second respondent to hand over the possession of the whole property including the property in possession of the petitioner.