9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s No. 142, Madhuban, Delhi, having 330 sq. yards of land built-up areas of 2 floors with a mezzanine floor and basement. The property belongs to one Dr. S. K. Sama, who entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of the two petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs vide agreement dated April 26, 1995 (annexure P-1). Form No. 37-I (annexure P-2), as required by section 269UC of the Act signed by the vendor and vendees both were filed on April 28, 1995. The appropriate authority raised certain queries and then issued a show-cause notice calling upon the parties to the agreement to show cause why an order to purchase by the Central Government be not passed. The petitioners as well as the vendor filed replies. After af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate it was an ideally comparable property. If only the appropriate authority would have kept in view the facts relevant to 135, Madhuban there would have been no occasion to deny no objection certificate to the transaction entered into by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that all the relevant factors were kept in view and order to purchase made by the appropriate authority is a very just order not liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. We would deal with the two contentions canvassed before this court seriatim. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the court to clause 13 of the agreement annexure P-1 which provides that all the ground re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the FAR of the property in question was different from the FAR of property at 135, Madhuban, but was the same as that of A-27, Swasthia Vihar. Secondly, the sale instance of 135, Madhuban, was comparatively older than A-27, Swasthia Vihar and, therefore, the same was not relied upon. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the formula applied by the appropriate authority is in violation of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautam [1993] 199 ITR 530. It was contended that the Appropriate Authority should have found out the market value, and then calculated the amount of 15 per cent. reduced it from market value and then compared the figure so arrived at with the apparent considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppreciating the findings recorded by it. We are basically concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process. We may also interfere where the rules of natural justice are shown to have been violated or the order suffers from perversity. In the case at hand none of these circumstances are shown to exist. Incidentally, it may be mentioned, as was brought to the notice of the court by learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, that after the filing of this petition, the petitioners had sought for the operation of the impugned order being suspended, pursuant to which order the property was proposed to be sold by public auction. By order dated July 16, 1997, this court had directed that the auction may go on but con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
