JODHRAM DAULATRAM ARORA Vs. KODNANI M B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order under S. 269 UD(1), the petitioners purchasers seek to challenge the pre emptive purchase by the Government of Flat No. 10 on the third floor in Building No. C. known as Parmar Paradise, admeasuring, approximately, 1286 sq. ft. alongwith car parking No. 10 situate at Survey No. 80/A/2 and Survey No. 425, B.J. Road, Pune.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts relevant for deciding the present matter are as follows:

(3.) BEFORE coming to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, we may mention that we are not inclined to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution in this matter. Firstly, the facts mentioned hereinabove indicate that even prior to the agreement in question, which is executed on 12th July, 1993 the petitioners paid the entire consideration amount to the vendor. The petitioners were in fact put in possession by the vendor. However, they have not disclosed the date on which they were put in possession by the vendor. The petitioners, therefore, paid the consideration amount and got possession without obtaining N.O.C. under Chapter XX C of the Act. Moreover, Form No. 37 I was executed by the parties only on 27th July, 1993 and before the above date, the entire transaction had taken place. Secondly, in the present case, respondent No.5 has not challenged the Appropriate Authority's decision. The letter (Exhibit P 3) at page 112 of the writ petition is signed by the petitioners, By the said letter, the petitioners in fact have requested the Appropriate Authority to pay the entire consideration of Rs. 14,06,000 to them and not to the transferor. This is because prior to the agreement in question the entire consideration appears to have been paid to the vendor. The date on which the petitioners obtained possession from the vendors is not mentioned. By the said letter (Exhibit P: 3), the petitioners have also informed the Appropriate Authority that they will not create any dispute for the above consideration of Rs. 14,06,000. In view of the above facts, we do not see any reason to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. However, Mr. Mistry advanced certain legal contentions which we have decided to deal with in the following paragraphs in the interest of justice.