CHOKHAWALA ASSOCIATES Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside orders dated September 30, 1991 and October 23, 1991, passed by the appropriate authority-respondent No. 1 herein, under Sec. 269UD of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act").

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carryiny on business in the name and style of M/s Chokhawala Accociates. Petitioners No. 2 is one of the partners of the said firm. It is stated in the petition that the Saurashtra Trust is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Trust owned a property, known as Ranchhod Wadi, in Ward No. 11 at Surat, admeasuring 1122 sq. yards. Since the Trust wanted to sell it, an advertisement was issued on February 20, 1971, which was published in "Gujarat Samachar" dated 22nd February, 1991. A copy of the advertisement is annexed to the petition. The Trust invited offers from willing bidders. It is asserted by the petitioners that wide publicity was given to the said advertisement through various newspapers at Bombay in the State of Maharashtra as well as in the State of Gujarat. The Publication was made in as many as 16 leading newspapers. The names of the newspapers were also mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the petition. The last date of receipt of offers was 2nd April, 1991. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted their bid in a sealed envelope. A meeting of the bidders was called. According to the petitioners, though their initial offer was Rs. 50,00,000/-, it was raised to Rs. 86,00,000/-. It was the highest offer which was accepted by the Trust on certain terms and conditions arrived at between the parties. Since the property belonged to a Public Trust, the transaction was subject to permission of the Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

(3.) The Trust was required to make an application in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 269UC of the Act. Necessary information was sent to the Income Tax Department by the Trust. It was stated that on September 28, 1991, the property was visited by the officers of the appropriate authority. It was inspected on September 30, 1991 and an order of compulsory purchase of property was passed on the same day by the appropriate authority for net consideration of Rs. 83,13,490/- which is impugned in the present petition. Notice was served to the petitioners and since they were vitally affected by the order passed by the appropriate authority, they addressed letters dated October 9, 1991 and October 12, 1991 to the appropriate authority requesting him to rectify the mistakes committed by them. The appropriate authority by an order dated October 23, 1991 rejected the objection raised by the petitioners, which is also impugned in the petition. Since the order of compulsory purchase was passed under Sec. 269UD of the Act and an application for rectification was rejected, the present petition was filed by the petitioners on December 6, 1991. Rule was issued and now the matter is placed for final hearing.