PANDHARINATH BHIKAJI TELGE Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the above petitions, is to two orders both dt. 23rd Oct., 2009, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Mumbai, under S. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for the sake of brevity). By the said orders, it was held that the difference between the fair market value and apparent consideration in respect of the subject property is more than 15 per cent, and therefore, it was a fit case of pre-emptive purchase by the Central Government under S. 269UD(1) of the IT Act.

(2.) PANDHARINATH , the petitioner in Writ Petn. No. 2134 of 2010 and Dattatram, the petitioner in Writ Petn. No. 2135 of 2010, are brothers and the owners (hereinafter collectively referred to as owners) of one-half undivided share each of plot No. 565 of Suburban Scheme III of Chembur, CTS No. 1554A, Vithal Niwas, Ghatla Village, Ghatla Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 0071 totally admeasuring about 890.80 sq. mtrs. of land, with structure thereon (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). The brothers were apparently not in good terms. Pandharinath was in exclusive use and occupation of the eastern portion of the existing structure on the said property, whereas Dattaram, the western portion. Both Dattaram and Pandharinath separately entered into agreements described as 'Development Agreement' dt. 20th April 1994 and 17th May, 1994 respectively with M/s Sunkrish Developers (hereinafter referred to as transferee) to develop and transfer the said property in respect of their undivided shares on terms more particularly set out therein. The transferee has also challenged the aforesaid two impugned orders (Writ Petn. Nos. 2191 and 2192 of 2010). Respondent No. 1 is the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961 and Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India through Ministry of Finance. Inasmuch as the petitions raise common questions of facts and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE Appropriate Authority issued show-cause notices to Pandharinath and Dattaram as well as the transferee requiring them to show-cause as to why an order under S. 269UD(1) of the IT Act should not be passed for the pre-emptive purchase of the said property by the Central Government, as according to the Appropriate Authority there was significant under valuation of the said property. The valuation report along with three sale instances as Annex. 'A' thereto, was annexed to the aforesaid notices. In the case of Pandharinath, after making adjustments as reflected in the table hereinbelow, the rate per square fit FSI under the agreement was worked out by the Valuation Officer at Rs. 932 as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1744_TLMHH0_2011s1.htm</FRM>