M SUNDARARAJAN Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order dated January 5, 1994, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 15039 of 1988. The learned single judge has held that the clarificatory observation made by the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India would apply to the case and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the application of the ratio of that decision to his case and has accordingly dismissed the writ petition The relevant facts in this case are as followsThere was an agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the immovable property in question on August 25, 1988, under which the third respondent agreed to sell the immovable property in question to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 19, 00, 000 and out of that a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 was paid by the petitioner to the third respondent as an advance. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner and the third respondent applied for permission to the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. However, the appropriate authority exercising the power under section 269UD(1) of the Act directed pre-emptive purchase of the immovable property in question by order dated November 15, 1988.

(2.) THE order of purchase was served upon the third respondent on November 25, 1988, and on the petitioner on November 28, 1988. THE possession appears to have been delivered by the vendor on November 29, 1988, itself to the appropriate authority though the time for delivery was up to December 10, 1988. THE petitioner filed the writ petition in question on December 5, 1988, itself within a period of one week and obtained an order of injunction on December 8, 1988, itself restraining the respondents from proceeding further in the matter. However, on January 2, 1989, after hearing both sides, learned single judge passed the following interim order "After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I pass the following orderTHE Department, namely, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will pay a sum of Rs. 18, 00, 000 to the third respondent, owner of the property within ten days from today. On such payment, the third respondent will return a sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000 received from the writ petitioner by way of advance. Possession of the property shall continue to be with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pending disposal of the writ petition. In the event of the writ petitioner succeeding in the writ petition, the balance of the sale consideration now paid by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will have to be paid by the writ petitioner to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before getting or taking possession from respondents Nos. 1 and 2. THE writ petitioner further on payment of Rs. 1, 00, 000 to third respondent in the writ petition, is entitled to ask for execution of a sale deed from the third respondent.