9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 2. Validity of acquisition proceedings under Section 269F. 3. Fair market value determination and the DVO's report. 4. Validity and genuineness of the sale agreement dated 2nd October 1974. 5. Compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. 6. Delay in acquisition proceedings and its impact. 7. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. Issuance of clearance certificate under Section 230A. 9. Service of notice to interested parties. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Department raised a preliminary objection regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that it lies in Jodhpur where the land is located. However, the Tribunal dismissed this objection, noting that the order under Section 269F(6) was passed in Jaipur, both parties have addresses in Jaipur, and the appellant is assessed in Jaipur. The cause of action arose in Jaipur as the approval was obtained from the CIT-I, Jaipur. 2. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings under Section 269F: The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority. The Tribunal reviewed the history of the land and the various litigations it underwent. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of the land's transfer from His Highness Gaj Singh to Jodhan Real Estate Development Co. (P) Ltd. and subsequently to the appellant. The Tribunal found the acquisition proceedings valid and dismissed the appellant's objections. 3. Fair Market Value Determination and the DVO's Report: The Department initiated acquisition proceedings based on the DVO's report, which estimated the market value of the property at Rs. 1,20,91,000 as of 27th July 1984, significantly higher than the sale consideration of Rs. 24,45,452. The appellant argued that the DVO's valuation was arbitrary and that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the DVO. The Tribunal upheld the DVO's report, noting that cross-examination was not a right in this context, and the Competent Authority had provided the DVO's report and other relevant documents to the appellant. 4. Validity and Genuineness of the Sale Agreement Dated 2nd October 1974: The appellant claimed that the sale deed was in pursuance of an unregistered sale agreement dated 2nd October 1974. The Tribunal examined the genuineness of this agreement, noting several discrepancies and inconsistencies, including the purchase of stamp paper in a different name and location, and the lack of reflection of the transaction in the seller's accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the agreement was backdated and not genuine, thereby dismissing the appellant's claim. 5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the acquisition proceedings violated principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with certified copies of documents and were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the DVO. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's observation that the right to a hearing does not necessarily include the right to cross-examination. 6. Delay in Acquisition Proceedings and its Impact: The appellant contended that the long delay in completing the acquisition proceedings (over 16 years) should vitiate the proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but attributed it to various litigations and the stay orders from the High Court. It found the delay bona fide and not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. 7. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution: The appellant argued that initiating acquisition proceedings only against their society, and not against other societies that purchased land from the same seller, amounted to discrimination under Article 14. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that each case must be decided on its own merits and the doctrine of equality was not applicable. 8. Issuance of Clearance Certificate under Section 230A: The appellant claimed that the sale value was accepted by the ITO under Section 230A, and thus should not be questioned. The Tribunal clarified that the clearance certificate under Section 230A is for ensuring no tax demand is pending and does not validate the sale consideration for determining fair market value. 9. Service of Notice to Interested Parties: The appellant argued that notices were not served on the plot allottees, who were interested parties. The Tribunal found that at the time of initiation of proceedings, the allottees were not entitled to claim compensation from the government, and thus, were not considered "interested persons" under Section 269A(g). The Tribunal upheld the acquisition proceedings, noting that the appellant society was the interested party entitled to compensation. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant society, upholding the acquisition order passed under Section 269F(6) and finding no merit in the appellant's objections. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed examination of the facts, legal principles, and procedural compliance.
|
