9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that in terms of Section 269 UG, the amount of consideration is required to be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto which would include the transferee provided the transferee proves that certain payments were made by it in pursuance of the agreement to sale executed. Since no dispute was raised before the appropriate authority regarding non-payment of alleged payment made by the transferee, therefore, it cannot be said that payment made by the Revenue to the transferor is any way illegal and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to re-vesting of the property. We may also say that in terms of Section 269UH, if the amount is not paid within the time fixed, the property shall re-vest after the expiry of the aforesaid period. We find that re-vesting can be claimed only by the transferor and not by the petitioner, who is a transferee in terms of Section 269 UH (1) of the Act. The sale in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of agreement dated 15th November, 1989 would not be deemed to be complete on account of intervening action of the Revenue in terms of Chapter XX-C of the Act. Thus, we do not find any merit in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priate authorities under section 269 U.D. (1) of the Income Tax Act shall remain stayed. (ii) The Income Tax authorities shall not be required to pay either to the seller or to the purchaser the amount of the purchase price of the property until further orders or to the deposit with the prescribed authority. (iii) The provisions regarding limitation as contained in section 269 U. G. and U. H. shall not operate against Income Tax Department; and (iv) The seller, i.e. respondent no.4, M/s Ashiana Housing Financial (India) Ltd., shall be at liberty to proceed with the construction of the project in question including sought to be sold to the petitioner, but they are restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with the possession of the floor in respect of which they have entered into agreement with the petitioner. Petitioner as well as respondent no.4 is restrained from creating any encumbrance in respect of that property. Put up for admission on 8th March, 1990, within first ten cases. The stay was vacated on 03.12.1990. It is thereafter, the petitioner filed CWJC No.51 of 1991 claiming writ of mandamus to revest the property agreed to be purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench judgment reported as (1993) 1 SCC 78, C. B. Gautam versus Union of India and others. It is thereafter, a show cause was issued to the petitioner on 9th August, 1995 and the order of purchase was passed by the appropriate authority on 27th September, 1995. It is the said order of purchase which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. When the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 3rd September, 1996, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench doubting the correctness of the order dated 13th July, 1995 on the ground that sub-section (1) of Section 269 UG contemplates tender of amount of consideration to the person or persons entitled thereto . It can not necessarily mean the transferor or the transferors only. Transferee is also a person entitled to that part of the amount of consideration which he paid to the transferor in terms of the agreement of purchase. Since the transferee, the present petitioner has paid sum of ₹ 15,24,840/-, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the amount paid by him and the finding recorded by the earlier Division Bench that the person or persons entitled thereto would only mean to transferor or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se by the Central Government of such immovable property at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration: Provided that no such order shall be made in respect of any immovable property after the expiration of a period of two months from the end of the month in which the statement referred to in section 269UC in respect of such property is received by the appropriate authority. Section 269UF. (1) Where an order for the purchase of any immovable property by the Central Government is made under sub-section (1) of section 269UD, the Central Government shall pay, by way of consideration for such purchase, an amount equal to the amount of the apparent consideration. 269UG. (1) The amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269UF shall be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the immovable property concerned becomes vested in the Central Government under sub- section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (6), of section 269UE : Section 269UH. (1) If the Central Government fails to tender under sub-section (1) of section 269UG or deposit under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was already passed. Therefore, there could not have any second purchase order in anticipation of the order of Supreme Court that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. The requirement of compliance of principles of natural justice was laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam s case (supra). The order of purchase was thereafter set aside on 13th July, 1995 and fresh order of purchase has been passed on 27th September, 1995 within two months of the end of the month in which order was passed on 13th July, 1995 which is in consonance with the clarificatory order passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the order dated 27th September, 1995 was passed after the expiry of the period fixed in 269 UD. The second argument is that there is right of re-vesting of the property with the petitioner as the total sale consideration was not paid. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The schedule of payment attached with the agreement dated 15th November, 1989 contemplates extra cost of ₹ 30,000/- towards providing Kota stone is payable before taking final possession. Admittedly, the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, the appropriate authority was not required to examine the consequences of non-payment of such amount by the Revenue to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that in terms of Section 269 UG, the amount of consideration is required to be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto which would include the transferee provided the transferee proves that certain payments were made by it in pursuance of the agreement to sale executed. Since no dispute was raised before the appropriate authority regarding non-payment of alleged payment made by the transferee, therefore, it cannot be said that payment made by the Revenue to the transferor is any way illegal and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to re-vesting of the property. We may also say that in terms of Section 269UH, if the amount is not paid within the time fixed, the property shall re-vest after the expiry of the aforesaid period. We find that re-vesting can be claimed only by the transferor and not by the petitioner, who is a transferee in terms of Section 269 UH (1) of the Act. The sale in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of agreement dated 15th November, 1989 would not be deemed to be complete on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
