1998 (11) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Limitation, Powers Of High Court, Power To Remand, Central Government, Pre-emptive Purchase, Appropriate Authority

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory purchase order.
2. Comparability of properties used for valuation.
3. Consideration of tenancy in property valuation.
4. Non-disclosure of documents relied upon by the authority.
5. Remand of the matter to the authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Compulsory Purchase Order:
The petitioners challenged the authority's order dated October 29, 1994, which directed the compulsory purchase of the property at a discounted sale consideration, less than the agreed price of Rs. 25 lakhs for each floor. The court found that the authority's order was flawed due to non-consideration of relevant aspects and the improper comparison of properties.

2. Comparability of Properties Used for Valuation:
The petitioners argued that the properties used for comparison were not comparable. The court noted that the authority compared the subject property with properties on Khadernawaz Khan Road, a well-known commercial area commanding high premiums, while the subject property was in Wallace Garden, an interior residential area. The authority's reliance on FSI (Floor Space Index) as the sole determinant for comparability was flawed as it ignored locational advantages and the premium attached to the land on Khadernawaz Khan Road.

3. Consideration of Tenancy in Property Valuation:
The petitioners contended that the long-standing tenancy (30 years) should have been considered in the valuation. The court observed that the authority practically ignored the impact of tenancy on the market value, failing to discuss the extent to which the tenancy contributed to the reduction in the market value. The fact that the purchasers were directors of the tenant company was also not considered, which could explain the lower sale price.

4. Non-Disclosure of Documents Relied Upon by the Authority:
The court highlighted that the documents relied upon by the authority were not made available to the petitioners, despite their request. This non-disclosure resulted in prejudice and prevented the petitioners from effectively contesting the higher valuation of the comparable properties. The court emphasized that the rules of natural justice require that parties be given an effective opportunity to contest the materials used against them.

5. Remand of the Matter to the Authority:
The court addressed whether the matter should be remanded back to the authority. The petitioners argued against remand, citing potential prejudice due to the increased property value over time. However, the court held that procedural errors necessitated a remand. The court clarified that the statutory time frame for making an order does not preclude a fresh order if the original order is set aside by a superior court. The court directed the authority to make a fresh order within four months, confining itself to the existing materials and providing the petitioners with copies of all relied-upon documents.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority for a fresh order in accordance with the law. The authority was directed to provide the petitioners with all relevant documents and an opportunity to be heard. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no orders on the W.M.Ps and no costs.