SHYAM INVESTMENTS Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal No. 215 of 1994 is preferred against the order dated January 5, 1994, passed by the learned single judge in WRIT Petition No. 14089 of 1986 (see page 84 supra). The learned single judge has held that the clarification contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, would make inapplicable the principles laid down in the said decision, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it has been dismissed. Hence, the petitioner therein has come up in appeal. The facts necessary for the purpose of determining as to whether the view taken by the learned single judge is correct are as follows : The immovable property involved in the proceeding consists of land and building situate at 23, Padmavathiar Road, Royapettah, Madras. It consists of land measuring 3 grounds and 529 square feet and a building with a built up area of 3, 000 square feet. The petitioner firm agreed to purchase the same under an agreement dated October 24, 1986, for a total consideration of Rs. 16, 25, 000 and paid a sum of Rs. 25, 000 by way of advance by cheque number 662603 dated October 24, 1986, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mylapore, Madras-600 004. There are other conditions contained in the agreement, which are not necessary for our purpose. Pursuant to the agreement, permission was sought for from the appropriate authority, but by the order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated December 9, 1986, it chose to make a pre-emptive purchase of the property. It is the validity of that order which was challenged in WRIT Petition No. 14089 of 1986 (see page 84 supra). As already pointed out, the learned single judge has rejected it. WRIT Petition No. 14089 of 1986 was filed on December 22, 1986. There was an interim order passed on December 23, 1986, restraining the respondents from dispossessing respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who are the vendors. This interim order was again modified on January 23, 1987, and it was directed as follows : "After hearing counsel on both sides, the limited stay originally granted is modified and the stay is made absolute in the following terms : 1. Stay of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order in AA/MDS/10(51)/12/86-87 dated December 9, 1986.

(2.) THE respondents will not be obliged to pay any amount towards the purchase consideration to the transferor during the pendency of the writ proceedings and the transferor will not be allowed to take any plea of limitation at any stage for the non-payment of the consideration in terms of the provisions of sections 269UG and 269UH of the Income Tax Act, 1961.