9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th Aug., 1973 and registered on the same day by which the compact block of 16.675 Sq. links was sold jointly under one instrument of transfer by the two transferors who had jointly purchased that property to four other person. On field measurement the 16 cents was found to comprise only of an actual extent of 15 cents and 593 sq. links. So the total extent got reduced to 16.268 sq. links. The compact block of 16.268 sq. links was divided into four schedules, for convenient sake to be called "A, B, C and D" Schedules in the documents of sales. A schedule is to the west, them B schedule adjacent to it, C schedule adjacent to B and D schedule to the east of the compact block. While it was a compact block the access was from the eastern side to the area now covered by D schedule. While A schedule touches the north and south boundaries of the compact block, the other three schedules do not touch the southern extremity. The reason was that an access had to be provided for A, B, C D schedules. So a strip of land running east west from the east of A schedule to the east of D schedule was carved out as the pathway so that access is available to Schedule A, B, C D through that strip. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisition of the property covered by this instrument of transfer. Hence these appeals. 5. If the immovable property to which the acquisition proceedings relate is the immovable property of 16,268 sq. links, and as stated above there can be no doubt in this case that the immovable property to which the proceedings related is the immovable property of 16.268 sq. links, then it becomes clear beyond doubt and especially in this case that the fair market value of such property exceeds Rs. 25,000 because even the cost of acquisition is more than Rs. 33,000. So the objection against acquisition raised under s. 269E and which was over-ruled by the competent authority was that inasmuch as there were, though in one instrument of transfer, four separate sales of four separate schedules of property to four separate persons with distinct, separate and ascertained consideration specified and paid for each schedule, the competent authority should have initiated four separate proceedings for four separate schedules in which case the fair market value of none of the four schedules will exceed Rs. 25,000 (in that case the property to which the proceedings relate will be the schedule and not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative. It does not make any difference to the situation. Nevertheless it is only a case of only four sales to four individuals. If the intention of the transferees be so as explained by the Departmental Representative, it is only a case of four persons purchasing four separate parcels of land and putting up a building common to all the four persons. If we accept the case of the Departmental Representative it will become a case where we have to re-write the terms of the contract and confer by ourselves the ownership for one, say Sri. Suresh Chandra in Schs. B, C D which he did not purchase but which his brothers purchased. So we reject the case that because it is joint purchase it is only one transfer because what appears from the document is that it is four distinct and separate sales covered by one instrument of transfer. 9. Nor are we inclined to accept the case of the Departmental Representative that because the four transferees constituted an AOP it is one transfer. Where, as found above, there are four distinct and separate sales to four separate individuals it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the four persons constituted an AOP as regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legislation is to prevent evasion of tax or suppression of income. But before acquisition is effected, certain procedure has to be followed and certain ingredients have to be satisfied. The fair market value must exceed the apparent consideration with regard to that immovable property to which the proceedings relate and which is sought to be acquired. By definition 'apparent consideration in relation to any property transferred' means, if the transfer is by way of sale, the consideration for such transfer as specified in the instrument of transfer. So one has to find out the apparent consideration for the transfer. In that process of determination of apparent consideration for the transfer, can money paid by another transferee to the same transferor on the same date for a different property conveyed under the same instrument of transfer be taken into consideration? If we look into the definition 'apparent consideration' that is not permissible. If that is so, it follows that the expression 'immovable property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees' means the immovable property covered by the particular transfer and not by the same instrument of transfer. The D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed for acquisition the fair market value of the entire parcel of land of 16.268 cents will not exceed Rs. 1 lakh and on that basis for each schedule it will not exceed Rs. 25,000. We are not inclined to cancel the order on this line of reasoning. The competent authority having estimated the fair market value only for the entire parcel of land as one unit, he had not investigated and recorded a finding whether the fair market value for each schedule exceeds Rs. 25,000. So it is only a proper case for referring the case back to the competent authority for consideration of that crucial aspect of the case. 12. The transferees argued that if there are four transfers and that if the expression 'immovable property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees' relates only to the immovable property covered by a particular sale transaction then there is no proper initiation of proceedings because the proceedings already initiated within the prescribed time limit is for the entire property and that therefore it requires to be cancelled because a fresh proceeding in relation to each schedule cannot be now initiate as the time had already expired and that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the competent authority. 14. The transferees raised another argument. The gazette notification was on 11th May, 1974. That is the date of initiation of proceedings. That is within time. The parties were served with a notice of acquisition on 14th Feb., 1974 on the basis of which they raised their objections. Then another notice was issued to the parties on 2nd Sept., 1975. The submission of the transferees is that the authorities has no jurisdiction to issue the first notice because that is before initiation of proceedings, that even if it is issued properly it is scrapped by the second notice on 2nd Sept., 1975, that therefore there is no valid notice to parties and that therefore the proceedings have to be cancelled. We cannot subscribe to the theory that by issue of a second notice the first notice is scrapped. If a second notice is issued it is only a surplusage. The legality and vitality of the first notice is not in any way eroded. There is nothing in s. 269 to think that a notice under s. 269D(2) cannot be issued and served before the date of gazette publication. The notice issued even prior to the initiation is a valid notice. So in this case the question whether the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
