9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide. The relevant facts are that petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of an open plot of land bearing Survey No. 113 admeasuring 3 hectares and 93 acres situated at village Varje, Taluka Haveli, district Pune. Out of the said lands, development rights in respect of seven acres of land were given by petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 to petitioner No. 4 for development under the development agreement dated November 14,1994. The said seven acres of land are situated to the north of National Highway No. II on the hilltop and the consideration shown in the said development agreement was Rs. 80,00,000. The petitioners forwarded the said development agreement along with the requisite Form No. 37-I to the competent authority seeking approval of the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Act. On February 9, 1995, a notice was issued under section 269UD(1A) for purchase of the said property on the ground that the apparent consideration shown in the agreement dated November 14, 1994, was undervalued by more than 15 per cent. The petitioners replied to the said show-cause notice, inter alia, contending that the SIP referred to in the show-cause notice is not comparable and that even if the pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce area is required to be provided for the PUC whereas no internal road area is required for the SIP. (g) As the PUC is outside the Pune Municipal Corporation limits, the amenity open space requirement is 25 per cent., whereas, in respect of the SIP, the amenity open space requirement is 10 per cent. (h) The PUC does not have a service road and will have to leave 132 M land in length for the purpose of service road from the highway, whereas the same is not required in the case of the SIP. (i) In the case of the PUC, no additional FSI is available for internal road, service road, open space for amenities, etc., whereas in the case of SIP, additional FSI is available for the same. (j) The PUC is situated at a distance of approximately 10 kms. from Pune station, whereas the SIP is situated at the distance of approximately 5 kms. from the Pune station in a different direction. In view of the aforesaid glaring dissimilarities between the PUC and the SIP, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents are not justified in comparing the consideration shown in the SIP with the consideration shown in the PUC. Ms. Khan, learned advocate for the petitioners, relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the FSI has to be reserved for the purposes of Government nominees. According to the learned advocate for the petitioners, reservation of 10 per cent, flats for Government nominees was applicable even in respect of PUC and, therefore, the Appropriate Authority committed an error in taking into account the 10 per cent, reservation only in the case of SIP. For all the aforesaid reasons, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and since the SIP is not comparable and there is no undervaluation, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Asokan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in the present case the Appropriate Authority has taken all material facts placed on record and gave its finding of fact that there is undervaluation exceeding 15 per cent, and, accordingly ordered for purchase of the PUC. Mr. Asokan relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Primetime Media Services P. Ltd. v. U.V. Shahadadpuri reported in [1996] 217 ITR 417 and submitted that the decision of the Appropriate Authority being a finding of fact, the same cannot be disturb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Corporation limits, whereas the SIP is situated within the Pune Municipal Corporation limits. Moreover, in the present case, it is seen that there are distinguishable features between the two properties regarding the approach road, internal road, service road and amenity open space required to be kept open. The very fact that there are various disadvantages attached to the PUC compared to the SIP itself is sufficient to hold that the SIP is not comparable with the PUC. The Appropriate Authority has resorted to addition and subtraction of various advantages and disadvantages and arrived at the conclusion that the undervaluation is more than 15 per cent., which in our opinion is not proper. If the SIP is not comparable with the PUC, then it is not open to the Appropriate Authority to resort to mathematical calculations and by adding and subtracting the advantages and disadvantages arrive at a conclusion that there is undervaluation. The fact that the PUC is situated at a distance of approximately 10 kms. from the Pune station whereas the SIP situated approximately 5 kms. away from the Pune station in another direction is also a factor which cannot be ignored. It is contended by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
