9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Act' and consequently to quash the order dated 18.12.1997 passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Act and further to restrain the second and third Respondent from taking further actions in pursuance of the above order and to retrain 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents from handing over possession of the property in pursuance of the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are: The petitioners entered into an Agreement of sale in respect of the disputed property with the Vendor one Mr. W.G.S. Saldanha, the 4th Respondent herein, on 16.7.1987, for a total consideration of ₹ 18,00,000/-. The petitioners paid an amount of ₹ 5,50,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively, through cheques dated 16.7.1987, to the fourth Respondent an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the Purchaser and the Vendor are entitled for giving opportunity before the value is arrived at and a reasoned order has to be passed. It is submitted that, wherever the transactions are completed, the property is purchased under pre-emptive right to purchase by the Central Government and amount if returned back to the Vendor or the Purchaser and the possession of the property is taken, there is no necessity of again giving a notice and giving opportunity in such cases. It is contended that, in the present case, the authority already exercised its power and the amount is also returned to the Vendor, possession of the property is taken. Therefore, the case falls squarely within the parameters laid down in Gautam's case. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been provided with any opportunity before arriving at a conclusion. 8. The Supreme Court considered whether the requirement of issue of Notice to the Purchaser and the Vendor before exercising power under Section 269UD(1) of the Act. In this connection, the Supreme Court held as follows: It must, however, be borne in mind that courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an Order is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected. This would be particularly so in a case where the validity of the Section would be open to a serious challenge for want of such an opportunity. It is true that the time- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws: We may clarify that, as far as completed transactions are concerned, namely, where, after the order for compulsory purchase under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act was made and possession has been taken over, compensation was paid to the owner of the property and accepted without protest. We see no reason to upset those transactions and hence, nothing we have said in the judgement will invalidate such purchases. The same will be the position where public actions have been held of the properties concerned and they are purchased by third parties. In those cases also, nothing which we have stated in this judgement will invalidate the purchases. 10. The above observation of the Supreme Court makes it clear that, the principles l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. AND ANOTHERS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS) 13. There is dispute about the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court. The present case stands on a different footing; the transaction has already concluded, possession of the property is taken and the money is returned back, and the same is received without protest. Merely because the Writ Petition is pending, it cannot be said that the transaction is not concluded. 14. In view of the above said circumstances, we do not see any ground to interfere. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that, this Court has taken a view where the Writ Petition is pending and the transaction is also pending, it is not allowed to stay the order of the Appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
