HARISH KANAYALAL THAWANI Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging orders at Ext. "E" and Ext. "N". So far as the impugned order which is annexed at Ext. "N" to the petition.

(2.) SO far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are purchasers of the flat sold by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. A the Act. By the impugned order (Ext. "E"), the Appropriate Authority, after considering sale transaction, came to the conclusion that the flat in question is superior as compared to other flats regarding whose transaction reliance was made on behalf of the petitioners. The Authority found that the rate worked out at Rs. 5,074 per sq. ft. is low and the fair market value of the flat in question should be at least Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft., built -up area. It was found that the suit property is fit for purchase by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in Appropriate Authority under s. 269UD(1) of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioners thereafter preferred rectification application on the ground that certain sale instances cited by the petitioners before the Authority were not taken into consideration. In the rectification application, it was also submitted that the figures of discounted value were not properly taken. A point was also taken in the rectification application that as per the decision of Supreme Court of India in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 r/w (2003) 185 CTR (SC) 284 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC), a minimum of 15 per cent undervaluation with reference to the fair market value was necessary and that in the instant case, all the three figures indicated a difference of less than 15 per cent and that on that ground, the original order was required to be rectified. The Authority has found that the sale instances, on which reliance was made by the petitioners, cannot be a matter of rectification and, therefore, the rectification application is not permissible in law. The Authority also rejected other points raised in the rectification application. Accordingly, the petitioners filed present petition challenging the original order at Ext. "E" and order on rectification application at Ext. "N".