E VITTAL Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three Writ Petitions, the order of the Appropriate Authority, the 1st responden there in, passed under Section 269 UD (1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') in File No. AA/HYD/6(51)8/89-90/94 dated 20-5-1994 is questioned. The impugned order relates to pre-emptive purchase of immovable property bearing Municipal No. 6-1-145 to 149 in Walker Town, Secunderabad, (for short 'the property') by the Central Government under Chapter-XXC of the Act. The petitioners pray for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 10271 of 1994 and 2958 of 1995 are the purchasers (hereinafter referred to as 'Agreement Holders') of the property bearing Municipal No. 6-1-145 to 149, situate in Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12417 of 1994 is the owner (hereinafter referred to as 'Vendor) of the said property.

(3.) To appreciate the various contentions raised in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts, briefly, giving rise to filing of these Writ Petitions. On 3-5-1988, the Vendor agreed to sell the said property in favour of the first Agreement Holder for a total consideration of Rs. 24,70,000/- and the first Agreement Holder paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Vendor. On a second thought, the first Agreement Holder deemed it fit to purchase the said property in the joint names of himself and his wife and a fresh agreement was executed by the Vendor in favour of the Agreement Holders on 16-12-1988. It is stated that General Power of Attorney was also given by the Vendor when the agreement dated 16-12-1988 was executed. The entire sale consideration was paid but on various dates, from 3-5-1988 to 31-5-1989, by the Agreement Holders to the Vendor and it is contended that the Possession of the property was handed over by the vendor to the Agreement Holders on 31-5-1988. The Agreement Holders filed Form 37-I under Rule 48-L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Appropriate Authority. The Appropriate Authority, by his order dated 23-8-1989 passed orders under Section 269 UD(1) of the Act for pre-emptive purchase of the said property by the Central Government. The validity of the said order was questioned by the Agreement Holders in Writ Petition 12507 of 1989 in this Court on various grounds including the constitutional validity of the provisions of Chapter XX-C. This Court, by its order dated 16-2-1994, while upholding the validity of the provisions of Chapter XX-C, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.B. Gautam vs. Union of India, directed the Appropriate Authority to give show cause notice, call for objections and provide an opportunity of hearing to the Agreement Holders, before passing appropriate orders. Having regard to the directions issued by this Court, the Appropriate Authority, the 1st respondent herein, issued a show cause notice on 26-4-1994, setting out the reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the consideration was understated and called upon the Agreement Holders to file their objections. The Appropriate Authority, on a consideration of the reply filed by the Agreement Holders and also the material on record, by its order dated 20-5-1994, found that there was a difference of more man 15% between the apparent consideration and fair market value and directed the pre-emptive purchase of the property by the Central Government. It is the correctness of that order that is assailed on various grounds in this Writ Petition.