MRS. SAYYEDA FARHEEN MURTUZA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), whereby flat No. 302 of Green Gate Premises Co -operative Housing Society Ltd. situate at 693, Perry Cross Road, Bandra, Bombay -400 050, is sought to be purchased by the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX -C of the Act. petitioners agreed to purchase from the respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 the flat No. 302 of the Green Gate Co - operative Housing Society ("the said flat") for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 20,00,000. Accordingly, Rs. 50,000 was amount of Rs. 19,50,000 and received possession of the flat. The price worked out to Rs. 1,558 per sq. ft. for built -up petitioners received a notice from Appropriate Authority.

(2.) APPROPRIATE Authority enclosing letter of M/s Dilip Kulkarni and Associates. Moreover in the said letter petitioner cited the instance of flat No. 11 in the neighbouring Pericot Building, 22A, Perry Cross Road, Bandra, Bombay 400 050 which was 269UD(1), directing the purchase of the said flat by Union of India at amount equal to the apparent consideration of the said flat without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No. 361 of 1988. The said writ petition was set aside by this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC) and the respondents were directed to give a fresh show -cause notice and then to hear the petitioner. three sale instances cited by the Appropriate Authority are not applicable in the instant case. Moreover the petitioners requested the Appropriate Authority to furnish them a copy of the notings of IAC and valuation report relied upon by the Appropriate Authority in the said show -cause notice. The reply further pointed out that the Appropriate Authority has not determined the fair market value. Besides, the sale instance in White Rose building proves that the apparent consideration shown by the petitioner is within the 15 per cent differential margin, declared as permissible by the 1988 ought to have been taken into account. It also brought to notice that petitioner's flat required repairing which was advocate of the petitioners, cited 4 instances of auction sale conducted by the Appropriate Authority, Metropolitan, Bel purported to purchase the property in question. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the stay granted by this Court, no further action has been taken to implement 1993 suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be quashed and set aside, because, firstly, the Appropriate Authority has not determined the fair market value of the property in question so as to arrive at a conclusion that there is any undervaluation to the extent of 15 per cent of the fair market value. Secondly, it is contended that the impugned order passed without furnishing particulars and details relating to the sale instances, is in breach of the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, it is contended that in one of the sale instances set out by the Appropriate Authority the differential rate is not more that 15 per cent and is thus in accordance with the acceptable margin established by the Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam (supra). Fourthly, it was submitted that the sale instances pointed out by the petitioner has not been considered by the Appropriate Authority. Lastly, the Appropriate Authority did not furnish to the petitioner, the valuation report and IAC notings which were strongly relied upon in the show -cause notice, though demanded by the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Mistry, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.