NARESH M MEHTA Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a total extent of about 8,563 square feet of land with building at 94, Poes Garderi Street, Cathedral Road, Madras-86, comprised in R. S. No. 1567/32, Block 31, Mylapore Division. Part of the said property comprising of 2,831 square feet of land together with superstructure with a plinth area of 2,400 square feet, had been sold to the petitioner on January 19, 1990, for a consideration of Rs. 9.5 lakhs. It is stated that a wall was constructed to separate the rest of the land, being an extent of 5,732 square feet, with a building over an extent of 3,127 square feet. The division of this property is such that the rest of the land being 5,732 square feet with a building cannot be used by anybody except by the petitioner who is the purchaser of the portion already sold or with his permission. On February 15, 1990, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Mrs. Pushpa Rani, the owner of the property to buy the rest of the land, namely, 5,732 square feet, for a sum of Rs. 32,50,000.

(2.) IN accordance with Section 269UC of the INcome-tax Act, a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed on March 9, 1990, before the respondent, seeking a certificate of no-objection for the sale of the said extent of land. On May 17, 1990, the respondent issued a letter rejecting the statement as being defective in material particulars. The petitioner pointed out that he is entitled to purchase the property even if there are defects and filed a fresh statement under Form No. 37-I on July 23, 1990. By the impugned order dated September 19, 1990, the respondent rejected the application stating that the Department is unable to either purchase the property under Section 269UD(1) or issue a certificate of no-objection under Section 269UL. It is stated that the statement is deemed to be returned to the petitioner. Reasons are given in the order mainly pointing out that the division to contrary to municipal laws and the property which is the subject-matter of the statement cannot be independently used or developed having regard to the manner of division. The writ petition is to quash the said order dated September 19, 1990, and to direct the respondent to pass an order granting a certificate of no-objection under Section 269UL of the INcome-tax Act.

(3.) WITH the above background let us examine the provisions of law. I will refer only to those provisions which are relevant for this case. Section 269UC(1) insists on an agreement in respect of transfer of immovable property of such value exceeding Rs. 10 Sakhs. Section 269UC(2) requires the agreement to be reduced in the form of a statement and Section 269UC(3) read with Rule 48L and Form No. 37-I prescribe the contents of the statement. Section 269UD(1) enables the appropriate authority to make an order for purchase of the property by the Central Government. The proviso is important and it says that no such order can be passed after the expiration of a period of two months from the end of the month in which the statement is received by the appropriate authority. We are next concerned only with Section 269UL. Section 269UL(1) prevents registration of a document relating to such property without a no-objection certificate under Section 269UL(3). Section 269UL(3) says that if the appropriate authority does not make an order under Section 269UD(1), the appropriate authority shall issue a certificate of no-objection referred to in Section 269UL(1).