9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of appropriate authority regarding pre-emptive purchase or clearance based on incomplete information provided by transferee. Interpretation of law on pre-emptive purchase under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Authority's discretion to not pass an order due to incomplete statement under section 269UC(4). Comparison with previous judgments on rectifying defects in statements. Analysis: The judgment concerns the challenge to an order of the appropriate authority dated November 25, 1994, where no decision was made for pre-emptive purchase or clearance due to incomplete information provided by the transferee. The petitioner contended that the authority should have either passed the order for pre-emptive purchase or given clearance based on precedents, including the case of Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, if the land is already acquired, pre-emptive purchase is not applicable as per the law laid down by the apex court in S. Vasudev v. State of Karnataka. The judgment delves into the authority's discretion to not pass an order under section 269UC(4) if the statement is incomplete. Referring to the case of Government of India v. Jagadish A. Sadarangani, post the amendment to section 269UC, the authority can rectify defects in statements to avoid being restricted to only pre-emptive purchase or issuing no objection certificates. The court considered the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. v. Union of India, where it was established that the authority can choose not to act upon an invalid statement, rendering parties liable for violating the Act. Moreover, the judgment discussed the case of Chamundi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, where the authority's refusal to act upon an agreement without legal title was deemed valid. It also referred to Tata Consulting Engineers v. Union of India, highlighting the authority's power to require rectification of statements. The court emphasized that if a statement is incomplete, the authority is not obligated to pass any order, as seen in the present case where essential information was not provided, justifying the authority's decision to not pass an order. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to furnish the required information within six weeks. Once the information is submitted, the appropriate authority will consider it and proceed to pass an order in accordance with the law. The completeness of the statement will be determined based on the date when the information is furnished, ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
|
