HIMATLAL VADALIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this writ application seek to impugn the order dated November 30, 1994, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act ordering compulsory purchase of the land in question, as contained in annexure-H of the writ application. THE petitioners further pray for quashing of the consequential order dated December 14, 1994 (annexure "K"), by which possession of the property has been taken.

(2.) THE property in dispute is 33,333 sq. ft. of land of Municipal Plot No. 7 at Yeshwant Niwas Road, in the town of Indore. THE total area of Municipal Plot No. 7 is 1,00,000 sq. ft. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, i.e., the transferors, agreed to sell the property to the petitioners by agreement dated July 29, 1994, for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000. THE statement of proposed transfer was submitted to the appropriate authority. THE appropriate authority in exercise of its power under Section 269UD(1A) of the Income-tax Act required the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of preemptive purchase be not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the show-cause notice it has been stated that, according to the agreement, the apparent rate of land per sq. ft. of the property under consideration comes to Rs. 270 whereas 10,000 sq. ft. of land sold by the National Textile Corporation of land in the month of October, 1991, was at the rate of Rs, 375 per sq. ft. THE show-cause notice, however, stated that the land of the National Textile Corporation is slightly superior to the property under consideration. THE show-cause notice also stated that the minimum land rate prescribed under the guidelines issued by the District Collector of Indore, for the financial year 1994-95 for Yeshwant Niwas Road is Rs. 350 per sq. ft. According to the show-cause notice, the rate of Rs. 270 per sq. ft. for which the property is sought to be purchased is undervalued by more than 15 per cent. and accordingly the appropriate authority felt satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of show-cause notice for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 19.61.

(3.) SHRI S.C. Bagadiya, appearing on behalf of petitioners, advanced various submissions to assail the impugned order. However, in view of the subsequent events I am not inclined either to incorporate or adjudicate the points raised, as the writ petition is bound to fail on a very short ground.