9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, has been challenged in these writ petitions. Form No. 37-I in relation to the property was filed on or immediately after the execution of the agreement. Thereafter, the matter appears to have developed complications, which has resulted in the matter still lying unresolved even after a span of thirteen years from the date of the agreement In the agreement, it was stated that the vendors had entered into a partnership with one Bay Engineering Construction Company and that the persons who had joined them in that partnership, who were not members of the vendor's family had agreed to dissolve the firm. It was also stated that the petitioners before us were able to sort out the issues between the vendors under the agreement and those other partners who are not parties to the agreement. The price agreed for the property was Rs. 1,55,43,000. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid on the date of the agreement. It was mentioned in the agreement that there was encumbrance in the form of a decree obtained by a creditor bank of the vendors in C.S. No. 48 of 1972. The Appropriate Authority, after looking into that agreement, merely rejected that Form No. 37-1. It also directed the Sub-Registrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter within the time so extended, made an order on April 2, 1992, under section 269UD(1) of the Act. That order of the Authority, being the second in the series, was challenged in W.P. Nos. 5448 and 8108 of 1992. Those writ petitions were allowed on December 21, 1992, on the ground that the petitioners had not been given a hearing before the order dated April 2, 1992, was made. After the disposal of that petition, the Authority gave notice to the petitioners and after hearing them and receiving the reply, the Authority made to the impugned order on February 22, 1993, directing the compulsory purchase of the property under section 269UD(1) of the Act. Mr. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable, as it has failed to address itself to the basic question as to what the value of fourteen and half grounds is, as the method adopted by it for determining the market value of the property is not a method which can be countenanced in law, inasmuch as all that the Authority has done is to take two instances of sales which had taken place some eight months earlier, i.e., in January, 1989, in relation to two plots of tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on August 9, 1989, and that is the reason why the Appropriate Authority did not exercise the right of pre-emptive purchase. Counsel submitted that if in the view of the Authority a cloud on the title of the petitioners' vendors existed and the vendors to that agreement were not in a position to transfer the title of other three persons, viz., Iqbal and two others, that cloud cannot be regarded as having become non-existent merely because of subsequent developments, viz., the suit filed by the petitioners, the agreement between the petitioners and Iqbal and others by which those persons agreed to receive money from the petitioners and give up their rights in the property. It was submitted that the Authority is required to ascertain the market value as on the date of the agreement with all the advantages and disadvantages existing as on that date, as the amount agreed to be paid is an amount which a willing purchaser was ready to offer being fully conscious of all the risks and problems that were in existence in relation to the property as on the date of the agreement. Counsel further submitted that had the Government taken over the property on the date of the agreement, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose for which it is purchased by the purchasers, the resources of the purchasers and their ability to pay the sum over Rs. 1.5 crores for one single property which has only a large residential building and which was currently fit for use only as a residence. The Authority, in its impugned order, has sought to justify its action in not having made any attempt to have an independent valuation done by other experts, or by their own members having expertise, by merely stating that one of them is a former chief engineer. However, the order does not indicate anywhere that specialised knowledge was utilised in a demonstrable way for the purpose of determining the value of this plot after taking relevant factors into account. No exercise done by that former chief engineer in that regard, if he in fact had done one is available in the record. The valuation has to be made as on the date of the agreement and after taking into account all the advantages and disadvantages then existing. The authority itself was of the view that as on the date of the agreement, there was a cloud on the vendor's title. The other partners in the firm to which the vendors had brought this, and their other pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining the market value is far from being satisfactory and not one which can be regarded as fair and just in the circumstances, we have no alternative but to set aside the order made by the Authority and send the matter back to it for carrying out the exercise and valuation of this property on objective criteria taking into account relevant circumstances which existed as on the date of the agreement. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Authority to redetermine the market value of the property as on the date of the agreement to sell on acceptable and relevant criteria and after taking note of all relevant circumstances. Counsel for the petitioners points out that Chapter XX-C of the Act itself has been deleted from the statute book with effect from July 1, 2002 and, therefore, the Authority is likely to have a fair amount of free time. He submits that the Authority should be able to complete this task within a period of two months. Counsel for the Revenue, however, pleads that a larger period of time be given to the Authority. Considering all the circumstances of the case, we consider a period of three months from the date of commun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
