B F DITTIA Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXERCISE of the right of pre-emptive purchase by the Central Government, under Section 269 UD (1) of the Income Tax Act, of "rustom Villa", a residential building, and the order issued in this regard on 30. 3. 1998, are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) "rustom Villa" at Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad, belonged to mrs. Zenobia Rustom Ranji who passed away on 29. 10. 1988. She had earlier executed a will on 22. 5. 1987 appointing the petitioners as executors in respect of her properties including "rustom Villa". Under the will, the said residential building was to be sold and the sale proceeds was to be donated to nine charitable institutions. Petitioners claim to have got the property valued by two valuers according to whom it was worth Rs. 15. 32 lakhs and Rs. 15. 60 lakhs respectively. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with Mrs. Sanbar n. Markar on 14. 12. 1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 15. 60 lakhs. They filed the statement in Form 37-I, together with the agreement of sale, before the 1st respondent on 27. 12. 1989. Another set of Form 37-I was also submitted on 9. 2. 1990. The 1st respondent, without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, passed orders on 16. 2. 1990 purchasing the property, on behalf of the Central Government, for Rs. 15,31,640/ -.

(3.) QUESTIONING the said order dated 16. 2. 1990, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 2978 of 1990 and this Court by its order dated 03. 12. 1997, while setting aside the impugned order dated 16. 02. 1990, observed that a fresh order shall be made keeping in view the ratio and the directions given in the judgment of the supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, 1993 1 SCC 78. Petitioners were, therefore, issued notice dated 25. 3. 1998 enclosing thereto a copy of the proceedings of 6. 2. 1990, (which proceedings were the subject matter of challenge in w. P. No. 2978/90), calling upon them to show cause why pre-emptive purchase, under section 269 UD (1), should not be made. The petitioners were further informed that their case stood posted to 30. 3. 1998. The petitioners sent a telegram seeking further time. Despite such a request, final orders were passed on 30. 3. 1998 as, according to the 1st respondent, the last date for passing the final order was 31. 3. 1998.