9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to order for compulsory purchase of property under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without granting an opportunity to the petitioners.
Analysis: The petitioners sought to quash the order dated December 17, 1991, which directed the purchase of their property by the Central Government under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners also requested a direction not to interfere with their right to transfer the property. The petitioners had agreed to sell their land to a couple for a specified amount, and the transferees had applied for permission for the transfer. However, the appropriate authority issued an order acquiring the property without granting any opportunity to the petitioners. The main contention raised was the lack of opportunity before passing the order, making it unsustainable. A similar issue was addressed in the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC), where it was held that an opportunity to show cause must be given to the intending purchaser and seller before making an order of compulsory purchase of property under section 269UD. The Supreme Court clarified that the period for such cases should be reckoned from the date of disposal of pending matters or the vacation of stay orders. The court found that the decision in C. B. Gautam's case applied to the present situation. Upon examining the affidavits, it was admitted by the respondents that no opportunity was provided before passing the impugned orders. The court noted that an ad interim stay order was still in effect, aligning with the Supreme Court's supplemental direction. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders dated December 17, 1991, and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioners the required opportunity within a specified time frame. The petitioners were instructed to file a certified copy of the order before the relevant respondent for further proceedings. In conclusion, the court's decision emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to parties before making orders of compulsory purchase of property under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the need for procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in such matters.
|
