9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, viz., Mrs. K. S. Chenai. This land was given under a perpetual lease to DBR Mills Limited (for short "DBR"). Presently, the subject property is under the occupation of DBR. It appears that DBR has filed a declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, showing the subject land as belonging to it and later the said land was excluded from the hands of the heirs of Chenai family by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It, further appears that in the hands of DBR the Special Officer and the Competent Authority held that 16 acres of land protected under section 4(11) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the balance of 6.5 acres was declared as excess out of the land in the bands of DBR. Against the said determination made by the Special Officer and the Competent Authority, a writ petition is filed in this court and the same is pending. Since the DBR stopped paying the annual lease amount of Rs. 1,000 from 1992 and commuted default in Payment of rent to respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 has filed the suit O. S. No. 120 of 1995 in the court of the Fourth Additional Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioners on February 11, 1999, and March 9, 1999. Subsequently, an order was received from the first respondent on August 26, 1999, stating that the case is closed as non est. The order dated August 26, 1999, reads "Government of India, Office of the Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department, 'Kendriya Sadan', 4th Floor, 'A' Wing, 17th Main, Second Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. No. AA/HYD/l/(85)4/98-99 Dated : 26-08-1999. Sri Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, 5-9-22, Shapoorwadi, Adarshnagar, Transferor Hyderabad. Ashis Developers, 4-4-1, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Sri Rajkumar Malpani, Sri Niketan Apartments, Basheerbagh Palace Colony, Transferees Hyderabad. Sir(s)/Madam, Sub : Joint Statement in F. No. 37-I filed by you on 17-12-1998, in connection with the transfer of property located at Bagh Elchibaiguda, Bakaram, Hyderabad-Reg. Ref 1. This office letter dated 25-1-1999 and 24-2-1999. 2. Your letter received in this office dated 11-2-1999, 19-7-1999 and 10-8-1999. Please refer to the above. On going through the note submitted by Sri B. Satyanarayana Murthy, A. R., it is also noticed that various litigations are pending in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f pre-emptive purchase or in the alternative issue the no objection certificate to the application. Learned senior standing counsel would submit that the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 307, were made having regard to the peculiar circumstances of that case, and as such the same cannot be stretched to the extent the petitioners intend to do. Learned standing counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Chamundi Hotels Private Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1997] 225 ITR 590 in support of his submission. The only question that arises for decision is whether the reason given by the first respondent-Appropriate Authority in its order dated August 26, 1999, for refusing to issue the no objection certificate is legal and justified. The Supreme Court in Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 307 has observed: "We agree that two alternatives are open under the scheme of the legislation: (i) the Union of India through the Appropriate Authority could buy the property, or (ii) in the event of its decision not to buy, it has to issue a 'No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified by the decisions in the following cases : Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 307 (SC) ; DLF Universal Ltd, v. Appropriate Authority [2000] 243 ITR 730 (SC) ; Ramanlal B. Pandya v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 454 (Kar) ; Savitri Devi v. Apropriate Authotrity [1995] 211 ITR 10 (Delhi) ; Dwarkanath Chatterjee v. Union of India [1995] 213 ITR 470 (Cal) ; IOL Ltd. v. S. C. Prasad [1996] 217 ITR 52 (Bom) Sunil Kumar v. Ushadevi Radhakrishna Pathi [19981 233 ITR 245 (Mad) and Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1991] 188 ITR 623 (Delhi). In DLF Universal Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [2000] 243 ITR 730, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed : "Sub-section (4) of section 269UC was considered by this court in Jagdish A. Sadarangani v. Government of India [1998] 230 ITR 442. That case related to the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 269UC of the Act. Sadarangani, the appellant entered into an agreement dated September 7, 1995, for purchase of certain property in Madras for a sum of Rs. 5.50 crores. The property comprised land and built-up area. On the same date, an application i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court, while dismissing the special leave petition against the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, has said: 'We agree that two alternatives are open under the scheme of the legislation : (i) The Union of India through the Appropriate Authority could buy the property, or (ii) in the event of its decision not to buy, it has to issue a "no abjection certificate" leaving it open to the parties to deal with the property. In that view of the matter the High Court was right in its conclusion'. Then this court construed sub-section (4) of section 269UC as under : 'We are unable to construe the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of section 269UC as conferring a power on the Appropriate Authority to decide the question about the legality of the agreement which has been entered into by the parties and on the basis of which the statement under section 269UC(2) has been submitted. What is contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 269UC is that if there is a defect in the statement submitted under section 269UC(2), which must comply with the requirements of subsection (3), then the Appropriate Authority may intimate to the parties concerned about the said defect and give them the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration shown in the agreement or to issue a certificate of no abjection certifying that it has no abjection to transfer such an immovable property for the amount equal to the apparent consideration stated in the agreement, in respect of which it has received a statement under sub-section (3) of section 269UC of the Act. To my mind, it appears that it is not permissible for the Appropriate Authority to go into the legality or otherwise of the agreement entered into between the vendor and the vendee, or the desirability or advisability of certain stipulations provided in the agreement either looked at from the interest of the vendor or the vendee." The Delhi High Court in Savitri Devi v. Appropriate Authority [1995] 211 ITR 10 observed : "We need not go into the precedential value of the above decision, as we are bound by the decisions of this court, which clearly lay down that the Appropriate Authority acting under section 269UD cannot go into the legality of the agreement before him and his only power is to make an order of purchase for the Central Government or grant a 'no objection certificate'." The Calcutta High Court in Dwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versal Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [2000] 243 ITR 730 and secondly because of the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court can be distinguished on facts also. The next question to be considered is what is the nature of the relief the court should grant in the instant case. Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DLF Universal Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [2000] 243 ITR 730 and the judgment of the Karnataka Higb Court in Rainanlal B. Pandya v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 454, would maintain that it is a fit case where the respondent-Appropriate Authority be directed to issue a no abjection certificate to the petitioners. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978] AIR 1978 SC 851 ; [1978] 1 SCC 405, the Supreme Court has opined : "When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise." In the instant case, the only reason given by the respondent-Appropriate Authority to reject Form No. 37-I application of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
