9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory provision in the process of decision making or (v) decision is such which no reasonable person could on available material arrive at. Functions of the Appropriate Authority being akin to that of a quasi judicial body, therefore, its order are subject to judicial review within the scope available for writ of certiorari. At the same time, however, this power of judicial review would not extend to the status of the appellate powers and for that matter, revisional powers where the scope of interference is much wider. It is within this available scope of interference that the learned single Judge examined the validity of the impugned pre-emptive purchase order and upheld the same and we have to now in this appeal examine the correctness of the judgment passed by learned single Judge which exercise in effect would also extend to examining validity of the impugned pre-emptive purchase order on the grounds that have been raised before us. Market rates of totally different type of land - On examination of the impugned order of pre-emptive purchase, we find that the Appropriate Authority in its order has categorically noted this argument with reference to r. 11 of the Rajast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the fact that he invited attention of the transferor to para 4 of the agreement whereby the transferor had to get the open land partitioned by metes and bounds with a specific demarcation, she failed to get the demarcation done till date and thereafter when he went to the site on 22nd June, 1994 the transferee produced copy of the status quo order passed by this Court. In fact, the vendor in her appeal before us is claiming mesne profit from the prospective buyers asserting that they have been during all these years earning huge profits by renting out offices as also open land area for social functions like marriage and party etc. Apart from the fact that the argument about the encumbrances being attached to the property was not raised before the Appropriate Authority, facts narrated above clearly show that despite possession of the godowns and office premises etc. having been handed over to the transferee, both the transferee and the transferor adopted a non-co-operative attitude in getting the common land partitioned by metes and bounds, notwithstanding the specific stipulation to that effect in the agreement to sale that though symbolic possession of the 1/4th share has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum of ₹ 99,88,500 in the fixed deposit which we are informed was extended from time to time and is valid till date and the maturity value of such FDR as on 16th May, 2006 was stated to be of ₹ 2,67,81,932. We are however not inclined to entertain the other prayers of appellant Mithilesh Kumari because she having not challenged the pre-emptive purchase order and twice submitted no objection to the IT Department for the compulsory acquisition of the said property acquiesced in those proceedings and is now estopped from challenging the said order. Thus, in our view the present matter does not fall in any of those five categories which we had set out at the beginning of our discussion, and therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned single Judge did not commit any error of law in not interfering with the pre-emptive purchase order passed by the Appropriate Authority. We therefore do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the prospective buyers and the same is therefore dismissed but the appeal filed by the vendor is partly allowed with the direction that upon Department taking over possession of the subject property, prospective buyers would be entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together with agreement to sale and statement of transfer of the property. The Valuation Officer of the Appropriate Authority of IT Department thereafter vide his letter dt. 18th Jan., 1994 informed the appellants that he would like to inspect the property on 21st Jan., 1994 and demanded certain informations. It is stated that the appellants furnished the required information to the Valuation Officer who was later learnt to have submitted a report to the Appropriate Authority. The Appropriate Authority after receiving the report from the Valuation Officer issued a show cause notice to the appellants on 8th March, 1994 under s. 269UD(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 stating therein that apparent sale consideration as disclosed by the appellants was on lower side for various reasons and that in fact the value of the land was much higher than the agreed rate. It was stated that a plot of land at A-90, Triveni Nagar near Durgapura Railway Station was sold by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) on 7th Nov., 1992 in auction @ ₹ 1,781 per sq. mtr. The Appropriate Authority also pointed out that if an adjustment of 5 per cent on account of less development, 10 per cent on account of general co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sold on 3rd June, 1993 for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000 at the rate of ₹ 861.10 per sq. mtr. The Sub-Registrar fixed the market value of such land for registration purpose at the rate of ₹ 1,043.05 per sq. mtr. as per the rates prescribed by District Advisory Committee. Reference was given to the order of the JDA dt. 4th Nov., 1992 according to which reserve price for lands in Durgapura area was fixed at the rate of ₹ 600 per sq. mtr. for residential purposes. 3. The Appropriate Authority of the IT Department passed an order under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act on 30th March, 1994 and by virtue of powers vested in it under that section, ordered compulsory purchase of the disputed property by Central Government at an amount equal to the said apparent consideration. The Appropriate Authority by the aforesaid order instructed his office to serve on the appellants a copy of the order made by it for purchase of the aforesaid property by the Central Government and further stated that according to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 269UE the said property now vested in the Central Government from 30th March, 1994. The appellants were directed by letter dt. 30th March, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution was available only to the extent of examining as to whether any perverse finding has been recorded by the authority or the order suffers from non-application of mind or further whether the order is contrary to established principles of law. Shri Paras Kuhad therefore argued that learned single Judge overlooked the scope of judicial review on such matters as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 1 SCC 78, wherein it was held that there being no right of appeal or revision, the aggrieved party in a proceeding before High Court can demonstrate that the reasons adopted by the Appropriate Authority while passing an order of pre-emptive purchase were erroneous, irrational or irrelevant. It was further held that on account of absence of the provision for an appeal under the IT Act, judicial scrutiny in respect of exercise of power under Chapter XX-C also extends to a scrutiny whether the order is erroneous, irrational or based on irrelevant considerations which would mean that the merits of the pre-emptive purchase orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot No. A-19, Triveni Nagar, Jaipur. Adoption of such rate was unrealistic and totally incorrect as was evident from the price reflected under the sale deeds of other developed plots in Triveni Nagar itself namely plot Nos. B-44 and A-256 which related to the transaction of sale carried out in the month of June and July, 1993. According to such sale transactions, the market rate that was determined was ₹ 1,300 per sq. mtr. The Appropriate Authority also failed to consider that while the price adopted for comparison was that of a developed building plot, the property in question was a large undeveloped tract of agricultural land and if for the purpose of comparison, the price of the developed building plot was to be adopted, the cost of converting the undeveloped land area into developed building plots of small sizes was also required to be taken into consideration. The learned single Judge however refused to determine either the extent of saleable plot area that was likely to became available upon sub-division and consequential development of undeveloped land in question, which would have required the loss of land for making provision of the roads, parks and other civic ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be adopted or in the alternative the property should have either been valued by treating it as a commercial property or as an industrial property. If it was to be treated as the commercial property then the valuation has to be made to the extent of area that would have been available according to the plans approved by the JDA which would have meant loss of about 85 per cent of the total area being integral and concomitant to the development of the property as commercial property. The learned single Judge was therefore not right in adopting the rates in the commercial area and refusing to take into consideration the area that was to be lost on that account as per already approved plans. Similarly if the valuation of the property was to be done by taking it as an industrial property, the value of the land underlying the industrial godown could not have been assessed with reference to the price applicable to residential building plots and the value of the godown were to be taken into consideration together with the loss in the value of the land arising on account of its reduction in the form of industrial land. Since the industrial land available in the vicinity was valued at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t along with an application filed at the time of hearing and Shri Paras Kuhad on that basis argued that while other factors with regard to deductions on the rates of comparable sales price of A-19, Triveni Nagar were mentioned in the show cause notice as also in the impugned order but the factor with regard to deduction of 10 per cent for encumbrance due to built up structures on the plot and further deduction of 10 per cent for joint ownership as suggested by the Valuation Officer were completely withheld by the Appropriate Authority. This according to Shri Kuhad vitiated the impugned order and violated the requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing being provided to them in terms of s. 269UD(1A). It was argued that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that major part of the property was in the nature of undivided open land, dimension and location of which were uneven and the possession having not taken place, therefore, the land covered by road and other amenities and it was not known as to by what time possession as also the ownership right of the same was likely to be available to the prospective buyers. Such land area being totally incapable of being used in gai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artnership was meant only for the purpose of saving income-tax. None of these partners except 1 and 2 had any title in the land. The vendor agreed to sell part of her share to the intending buyer on 11th Nov., 1993 and handed over possession of the property by getting the same measured by metes and bounds in the presence of notary public on 18th Dec., 1993. This fact was verified from the valuation report dt. 9th Feb., 1994 prepared by Shri R.S. Sagar, the Valuation Officer, wherein he has categorically on p. 2 of the report stated that property is free from any encumbrances/encroachments. This fact was further proved when the Appropriate Authority inspected the site in the last week of March, 1994 in the presence of all concerned and recorded in its order dt. 30th March, 1994 that the possession of the property has also been handed over to the transferees and they are usefully enjoying the same instead of making payment of rent etc. to the transferor. They therefore noted that no element of interest was considered while working out the market value of property on the date of agreement. No objection was raised by the intending buyers to these observations of the competent authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or social functions like marriage and party etc. Reference was made to the letter dt. 18th May, 1994 written by Valuation Officer to the Appropriate Authority. The Valuation Officer in that letter has recorded that when he went to take over the physical possession of the property, for one reasons or the other, inability was shown by the prospective buyers to handover the possession and time was sought, which was nothing but an exercise to purchase time and finally on 22nd April, 1994 produced a copy of the status quo order passed by this Court. It was therefore prayed that vendor having been unduly deprived of her property on account of status quo order passed in the writ petition and the appeal of the prospective buyer, this Hon'ble Court while directing them to return of the property to the vendor may also direct them for payment of the rent for the intervening period or alternatively direct payment of the sale consideration at the present market rate. 9. Shri J.K. Singhi and Shri Anuroop Singhi appearing for the respondents, Union of India in both the appeals, supported the order of the Appropriate Authority and also the judgment of the learned single Judge. Shri J.K. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asset is less than the value assessed by such authority. Besides s. 50C being a newly introduced provision, has been made effective prospectively from 1st April, 2003. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appropriate Authority Anr. vs. Smt. Sudha Patil Anr. (1998) 150 CTR (SC) 405 : (1999) 235 ITR 118 (SC), Union of India Ors. vs. Shatabadi Trading Investment (P) Ltd. Ors. (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 408 : (2001) 251 ITR 93 (SC), C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India Ors. (supra). Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudha Patil (supra), he argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case held that if two views are possible on the basis of available material, one which has been given by the inferior Tribunal and the other which the High Court may, on examining the material itself, come to a conclusion, then also it would not be possible for the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review to substitute the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. In that case, the pre-emptive purchase order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom which the stay order remains in operation shall be excluded for making the payment by the respondents to the seller. This order was later confirmed on 27th May, 1994 with a clarification that in case the impugned order is found to be untenable in law, the vendor shall be entitled to reimbursement for the loss occasioned to her. Considering the fact that the vendor may not suffer the loss of interest, the Department deposited the amount of ₹ 42 lacs payable to her in a fixed deposit. The said amount has earned interest and now having continuously earned interest increased substantially. Shri J.K. Singhi, argued that the learned single Judge has dealt with all the arguments in great details and has rightly upheld the pre-emptive purchase order by dismissing the writ petition. It was therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and perused the impugned judgment and also the other material available on record. 11. We must at the outset begin with noticing the scope of interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which by now stand well defined following catena of judgments by Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. 12. Argument that the Appropriate Authority while basing its order on the comparable sale price of developed residential plot No. A-19 of Triveni Nagar sold by JDA on 7th Nov., 1992 ignored the sale price of other comparable lands in that very colony of plot Nos. B-44 and A-256 needs to be examined first. A perusal of the para 9 of the impugned order for pre-emptive purchase shows that the Appropriate Authority held that plot No.B-44, Triveni Nagar was not at all comparable because this property is near nullah and its surroundings are very poor and further that the sale instance of June, 1993 was not reliable as it has not been examined for pre-emptive purchase as the alleged apparent consideration is only ₹ 1 lac. It also noticed the another sale instance of property at A-256, Triveni Nagar and stated that details thereabout were not made available by the appellants and as to the location of the property, it was found that this plot was also very close to the nullah and its surroundings were also very poor. The authority therefore held that these sale instances could not be compared with the subject property. In addition thereto, the Appropriate Authority also held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an area equal to 5,242.38 sq. mtrs. would have been available for sale. Appropriate Authority therefore by this alternative mode worked out the rate of the land on the basis of comparable sale instance i.e. 5,242.38 sq. mtrs. by adjustment of time gap of +12 per cent which then would come to ₹ 1,994.72 per sq. mtr. It was noted that this was so because the deduction of 34 per cent land contemplates absence of larger size as well as less development. On this basis the land value will be ₹ 1,995 x 5,242.38 = 1,04,58,548. Value of the constructed godowns of ₹ 42 lacs being added thereto, total value of the said property would come to ₹ 1,46,58,548 as against declared apparent consideration of ₹ 99,84,500. We do not find any error in the approach taken by the Appropriate Authority because deduction of 34 per cent of the land for making the provision of civic amenities like roads, parks, open spaces, electricity, water, sewerage, drainage, would essentially exclude the element of the land area being a large size agricultural chunk of land, which is the alternative argument made by the respondents and this would then also exclude the element of the land bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end with the dissolution of the firm and 1/4th of the land had come to the share of the vendor. These arguments were examined and rejected by the learned single Judge because they were raised before him. Validity of a pre-emptive purchase order shall have to be adjudged on the basis of what is stated in that order and not on the basis of hypothetical arguments raised by the appellants before the learned single Judge which had to be rejected because they were raised. 15. On this count also, we do not find that the impugned order passed by the learned Appropriate Authority suffers from any legality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. 16. There is then the argument that the Appropriate Authority was legally required to take into consideration various encumbrances that were attached to the property, such as 1/4th undivided part of the land of khasra No. 126 which was yet not partitioned by metes and bounds, the proprietorship rights being subject to the co-owners right of first refusal and built up structures existing on the plots, location, non-availability of possession and effect of these factors on transferability and enjo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we look at the memorandum of writ petition, it is found that the prospective buyers have raised as many as 22 grounds (a to v) as to the validity of pre-emptive purchase order and in last ground i.e. ground (v) only, the argument of encumbrances has been raised. It is in this context that we have to examine this argument. 17. Glance at the agreement to sale indicates that reference was made to the partnership deed dt. 22nd July, 1979 between the vendor Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and Smt. Krishna Kumari Roongta, of which firm there were 13 partners in all. It was stated that said partnership firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dt. 31st March, 1986 and as per the stipulation therein, two godowns namely godown Nos. 13 and 14 shown in yellow colour in the site plan enclosed therewith, fell into the share of the vendor with 1/4th undivided share of the remaining open land. It was stated thus that the vendor is the absolute owner and in possession of the said godown Nos. 13 and 14 and 1/4th undivided share in the open land of said khasra No.126 which covers approximately 9,500 sq. yards. The agreement in cl. (4) of its terms and conditions categorically stated that vendor shall ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and stated that he was likely to take considerable period to vacate the place. The Valuation Officer in an application submitted to the Appropriate Authority on 18th May, 1994 has categorically stated that in spite of the fact that he invited attention of the transferor to para 4 of the agreement whereby the transferor had to get the open land partitioned by metes and bounds with a specific demarcation, she failed to get the demarcation done till date and thereafter when he went to the site on 22nd June, 1994 the transferee produced copy of the status quo order passed by this Court. In fact, the vendor in her appeal before us is claiming mesne profit from the prospective buyers asserting that they have been during all these years earning huge profits by renting out offices as also open land area for social functions like marriage and party etc. Apart from the fact that the argument about the encumbrances being attached to the property was not raised before the Appropriate Authority, facts narrated above clearly show that despite possession of the godowns and office premises etc. having been handed over to the transferee, both the transferee and the transferor adopted a non-co-oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 per cent on account of large size of the subject property and + 12 per cent on account of time gap is made, adjusting such value by 5 per cent, arrived at the rate of ₹ 1691.95 or say ₹ 1692 per sq. mtr. The Appropriate Authority then on that basis held that the value of land measuring 9,500 sq. yd. or 7,943 sq. mtrs. at the rate of ₹ 1,692 works out to ₹ 1,34,39,556 as against apparent sale consideration of ₹ 99,84,500. It was stated that the value so arrived did not include the value of the existing godowns as well as commercial potential of the front part of the subject property. What is therefore to be considered is whether in spite of the fact that the valuation report was available with the Appropriate Authority, on the basis of what has been stated in the show cause notice can it be concluded that valuation report was such material which was relied on by the learned Appropriate Authority to arrive at the tentative view disclosed therein for making the order of pre-emptive purchase. Further argument is that the Appropriate Authority neither disclosed nor made basis of the deduction of 10 per cent for encumbrances and 10 per cent for joint own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13 and 14, besides offices and guardroom etc. and estimated value of the structures including godowns at ₹ 42 lacs. The Appropriate Authority also noted that there was no need to demolish the property (godown) unless the property was being exploited for better gains. Insofar as however the encumbrances are concerned, the Appropriate Authority in para 5 of the impugned order clearly noted the fact about the partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Rajasthan Industrial Company and the initial partnership dt. 22nd July, 1979 and 1st April, 1984 and dissolution deed dt. 31st March, 1986 and then proceeded to acknowledge the fact that the transferee Smt. Mithilesh Kumari was absolute owner of godown Nos. 13 and 14 and 1/4th undivided share in the land which approximately comes to 9500 sq. yds. including two godowns and land adjacent thereto. The Appropriate Authority therefore after due application of mind to the partnership deed as also the dissolution deed and the agreement to sale, came to hold that the vendor was absolute owner and had put the buyer in possession of the land of the said godown Nos. 13 and 14 and 1/4th undivided share of the land of Khasra No. 126 measur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply all such material on which it has based its conclusion. Thus this does not render any help to the appellants. 20. Our conclusions are fortified from the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shatabdi Trading and Investment (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the basis of the valuation had been disclosed to the party concerned in the show cause notice in sufficient details, even if other records such as the valuation reports were not disclosed or made available, that would not affect the decision of the Appropriate Authority. Their Lordships held as under : The basis of the valuation had been disclosed to the party concerned in the show cause notice in sufficient details. Even if other records such as the valuation reports were not disclosed or made available that may not affect the decision itself. The non-supply of the valuation report itself may not be vital to the case. For in this case the Department has given the details of the report in the show-cause notice itself which was issued and other materials having been made available to the party concerned, we do not think that there is justification for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chapter could be resorted to only when there is an attempt at tax evasion by significant undervaluation of immovable property agreed to be sold and further reasons are required to be recorded and disclosed to the affected parties and opportunity to be heard is required to be given before making an order for purchase. This Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the power of the Appropriate Authority is not arbitrary and the preconditions engrafted in the provisions must be satisfied for invoking the power to make an order for compulsory acquisition. This being the position, we fail to understand how the supervisory power of the High Court while examining the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by such Appropriate Authority could get enlarged merely because there is no appeal or revision against the order of the Appropriate Authority. In the case of Mrs. Kailash Sunaja vs. Appropriate Authority (1998) 145 CTR (Del) 560 : (1998) 231 ITR 318 (Del), the decision of the Delhi High Court on which the learned senior counsel for the respondent strongly relied, the learned Judges themselves have indicated that the satisfaction of the competent authority for initiation of acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch, 1994 and 20th March, 1994 and thereafter the State Government employees went on strike on 15th March, 1994. It is argued that because of the four holidays in between and the strike by the Government employees, the appellants were precluded from collecting the relevant papers and to file an effective reply to the show cause notice and thus they were denied reasonable opportunity. Learned counsel in support of his arguments refers to provisions of s. 269UD(1A) and relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sona Builders (supra). Apart from the fact that we are not impressed by the factual content of the argument because unlike in Central Government offices where they have five working days in a week, the State Government offices have six days' working in a week, even if two show cause notices were issued on 8th March, 1994 there still were 23 days with the appellants. Moreover the appellants having themselves furnished the requisite information in Form No. 37-I to the respondents on 31st Dec., 1993, they were cognizant of the fact that in the event of necessity, the enquiry under s. 269UD being summary in nature, would have to be concluded within 90 days and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are therefore not inclined to hold that she had exercised her right of first refusal that was contained in the dissolution deed. That right having not been exercised in the manner required in law should therefore be taken to have been waived by her. And appellants in this case cannot be allowed to agitate this argument on her behalf by proxy when she has acquiesced in favour of proceedings of compulsory purchase. In fact, Shri B.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the vendor Smt. Mithilesh Kumari has submitted that even though the prospective buyer filed the writ petition but Smt. Krishna Kumari Roongta was never impleaded as party respondent therein nor she herself came forward to be impleaded as party. What is more, she herself has filed a partition suit which is confined merely to remaining 3/4th part of the property and has nothing to do with the 1/4th share of the property with which we are concerned. We therefore do not find any substance in this argument raised by learned counsel as well. 23. Shri Paras Kuhad, the learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the learned Appropriate Authority has committed an error of law in not giving any credence to the argument of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e context of determination of compensation for the lands acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, held that the fixation by the Government of the amount under Stamp Act for fiscal purpose bears no relevance to determine the market value under s. 23(1) of the Act. 24. Shri Paras Kuhad, would then argue that since the Parliament has inserted s. 50C in the IT Act, the legislative recognition should be read in that provision as to the sanctity of the rates notified for such registration purposes, even if such rates were notified earlier than the aforesaid amendment. Sec. 50C inter alia provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government i.e. stamp valuation authority, for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed shall, for the purpose of s. 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Apart from the fact that s. 50C was introduced by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed thereto, total value of the subject property comes to ₹ 1,37,21,532 as against the apparent sale consideration of ₹ 99,89,500 which would reflect that the price of disputed property was declared at a much lesser value than was assessed by the Appropriate Authority by this mode. When however the valuation was made by the Appropriate Authority adopting another mode by accepting the argument of the appellants that for the purpose of comparison with the developed residential plots of Triveni Nagar, 34 per cent of the land shall have to be left open and thus there would remain only 66 per cent of the land, the value still worked out to ₹ 1,04,58,548 and that the amount of ₹ 42 lacs as the depreciated value of the godowns being added thereto, total value of the said properly works out to ₹ 1,46,58,548 as against the declared apparent sale consideration of ₹ 99,84,500, again there being a huge difference between the value assessed by the Appropriate Authority and declared as the apparent sale consideration. In either of the modes, the difference between the apparent sale consideration and the assessed value being far more than 15 per cent, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e even though the interim order was passed but the interest of the vendor was not protected in any manner. In the present case however the fact situation is entirely different. When the prospective buyers filed the writ petition, this Court vide order dt. 19th April, 1994 while directing the parties to maintain status quo further directed that the period during which the stay order remains in operation shall be excluded for making the payment by the respondent to the seller . This order was later modified on 27th May, 1994 upon the counsel or the vendor making an argument that if the period of interim stay order is extended, she is likely to suffer loss in terms of interest on the amount which was payable to her and she should not be made to suffer because of this interim order. The learned single Judge therefore while extending the stay order clarified that in case action of the Appropriate Authority is found untenable in law, the vendor shall be entitled to reimbursement of the loss occasioned to her. In order to meet this contingency, the official respondents immediately invested the amount of apparent sale consideration in the sum of ₹ 99,88,500 in the fixed deposit whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
