9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in their respective jurisdiction. They were upheld. These findings are based on appreciation of evidence. We do not find these findings to be either arbitrary or illegal or against any statutory provisions and nor they can be regarded as being perverse to the extent that no reasonable man could ever reach to such conclusion. We also find that these findings are in conformity with the requirements of Section 269 UD of the Act. Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9800-9801 OF 2010, CIVIL APPEAL No. 9901 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2019 - ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE And DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ. JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. C.A. Nos.9800-9801/ 2010 1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal No.744 of 1994 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the special appeal filed by the appellants herein and the final judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 in D.B. Civil Review Petition No.80 of 2007 by which the review petition arising out of SA 744/94 was also dismissed. 2. In order to appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appropriate authority. 9. The appropriate authority, on receipt of the report, issued a show cause notice on 08.03.1994 to the appellants under Section 269 UD (1A) of the Act stating therein that the apparent sale consideration, as disclosed by the appellants in the sale agreement, was on lower side for various reasons and that, as a matter of fact, the value of the suit land was much higher than the agreed rate specified in the agreement. 10. It was mentioned in the show cause notice dated 08.03.1994 that the Jaipur Development Authority on 07.11.1992 had sold a plot of land at A90 Triveni Nagar, Near Durga Pura Railway Station in auction at the rate of ₹ 1781/per sq. meter. It was pointed out that if an adjustment of 5% is made towards less development whereas 10% is allowed on account of large size of the suit land and further 12% is allowed on account of time gap, the rate of the suit land would work out to ₹ 1692/per sq. meter, i.e., ₹ 1,34,39,556/as against the agreed value of ₹ 99,84,568/. It was further pointed out that the value determined by the appropriate authority at ₹ 1,34,39,556/does not include the value of exis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty further directed the Income Tax Department to serve a copy of the order passed for purchase of the suit land by the Central Government to the appellants for their information. The order also directed that in terms of Section 269UE (1) of the Act, the suit land stood vested in the Central Government with effect from 30.03.1994. The appellants were directed to deliver possession of the suit land to Shri RS Sagar, DVO, Income Tax Department, Jaipur who, in turn, wrote to the appellants to intimate the time and the date of handing over the possession to the Income Tax Department. 14. With these background facts, the appellants herein felt aggrieved by the pre-emptive purchase order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department and filed a writ petition (W.P. No.1899/1994) on 13.04.1994 in the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur questioning therein the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.03.1994. The respondents (Income Tax Department) contested the writ petition and defended the pre-emptive purchase order as being legal and proper on the reasoning stated therein. 15. The Single Judge, by order dated 14.09.1994, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal and review petition before the High Court and also added some new arguments, which were not urged before the High Court. 20. In reply, learned senior counsel Shri Mukerjee appearing for the respondents (Union of India) while supporting the impugned order contended that no case has been made out to interfere in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and, therefore, the appeals deserve dismissal. 21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. 22. At the outset, it is apposite to mention that the constitutional validity of Chapter XXC inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 1986 of which Section 269 UE(1) is its part was challenged in this Court in the case of C.B Gautam vs Union of India and Others (1993) 1 SCC 78. Chapter XXC deals with compulsory acquisition of property and provides for preemptive purchase at apparent consideration by the Government of any immovable property. 23. The then learned Chief Justice M.H.Kania, speaking for the constitution bench, upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter XXC. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vir Nagar across the road on the north side and residential colonies of Green Nagar and Arjun Nagar on the eastern side across the road. Immediately after this khasra No.126, there is vegetable oil factory of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. on the western side. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and contentions of the ld. representatives of the transferor and transferees. As stated earlier, there are existing godowns bearing Nos.13 and 14. Besides, there are offices and guard room etc. Considering the rates applicable as in the case of CPWD structures as up date by cost index, the value of the structure including godowns is estimated at ₹ 42 lakhs. The main godown are of 2929 sq. meters and other structure 171 sq. meter. The godowns are lead bearing structure with Tubler trusses and AC sheet roofing having CC flooring in it. Proper electric installation and other services are provided as per the norms. It is not correct to say that the cost of removal of debris will be more than the cost of structure. As a matter of fact, even entire iron used has a lot of value be godowns are having internal height of 18 feet and raised platform. These were construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this basis as follows: Saleable area as per rule 11 of Rajasthan Urban Areas(sub division) Rules, 1975 is about 6%. This rule further provides that this may be more if the plot size is small. Assuming for arguments sake that 66% of 7,943 which is equal to 5242.38 sq. meters is available for sale, the land rate will have to be worked out on the basis of sale instance by adjustment of time gap of +12% only. In other words, the rate of sale instance will be 1718x1.12 = 1994.72 per sq. meter. It is so because of the fact that the deduction of 34% contemplates absence of large size as well as less developed . On that basis, the land value will be 1995x5242.38=1,04,58,548/if the value of structure of ₹ 42 lakhs is further out to ₹ 1,46,58,548/as against declared apparent consideration of ₹ 99,84,500/. 9. While coming to the above noted valuation of ₹ 1,46,58,548/adjustment on account of the following aspects have not been made. If these were further considered the value arrived at will still be higher: i) Deduction of 34% only has been allowed. The deduction can be still less if the plot is of smaller size. This will enhance the saleab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35. The appropriate authority then in para 12 dealt with another argument of the appellants that the adjustment of ₹ 10 lakhs payable towards registration charges and ₹ 15 lakhs has to be provided for roads, water and electricity supply. The appropriate authority rejected this argument because it found that this amount was not a part of the apparent consideration between the parties. 36. It is after recording the aforementioned factual findings, the appropriate authority came to a conclusion that the case for pre-emptive purchase of the suit land as contemplated under Section 269UD(1) is made out against the appellants. 37. Now coming to the order of the writ Court(Single Judge) dated 14.09.1994, we find on its perusal that the writ Court rightly observed that it could not act as an appellate Court to examine the legality and correctness of the pre-emptive order dated 30.03.1994 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 22 269UD(1) of the Act but its jurisdiction was confined only to examine as to whether any relevant material is ignored or any erroneous material is considered or whether the order of the appropriate authority has viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of 34% of the land for making the provision of civic amenities like roads, parks, open spaces, electricity, water, sewerage, drainage, would essentially exclude the element of the land area being a large size agricultural chunk of land, which is the alternative argument made by the respondents and this would then also exclude the element of the land being less developed/under developed. In other words, making use of 1/3rd land would in fact make the remaining 2/3rd land developed and with the sub division of lands into plots of smaller sizes, it would no longer remain a large size undeveloped agricultural land. In fact, making provision of all these civic amenities and facilities by using 1/3rd of the land would considerably enhance its saleability and appreciate the value of the remaining 2/3rd of the land. 41. Now coming to the order of the Review Court, when the matter was taken up in review jurisdiction at the instance of the appellants herein against the judgment of the appellate Court, Justice Lodha speaking for the Bench, again went into each issue on facts and law in detail and found no merit in any of the issues. The Review Court, therefore, also dismissed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. We cannot, therefore, entertain this submission at this stage: Second, in any event, no prejudice was caused to the appellants because all relevant documents were filed on this issue in the writ proceedings. The appellants, therefore, had full opportunity to deal with these documents which they also availed of and lastly, this issue was also argued on its merits. It is for all these reasons, we do not find any substance in this submission. 48. Learned counsel for the appellants then took us to the factual issues, such as location of the suit land, comparable sales relied on by the Department to prove the value of the suit land etc. These submissions were urged essentially with a view to show that the value of the suit land mentioned in the show cause notice was not the real market value and, therefore, the order of preemptive purchase of the suit land is bad in law. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, also placed reliance on the decisions in Sahib Singh Kalha Ors. vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 419, Lal Chand vs. Union of India Anr. , (2009) 15 SCC 769, and Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prospective buyers, partly allowed the appeal filed by the vendor and issued the following directions: ..but the appeal filed by the vendor (SAW No. 188/95) is partly allowed with the direction that upon department taking over possession of the subject property, prospective buyers would be entitled to refund of the amount paid to the vendor together with interest @ 6% p.a., out of the maturity amount of the aforementioned FDR and remaining amount shall be paid to the vendor. In the facts of the case, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 4. We find that while passing the aforesaid order, the provisions contained in Section 269UG (4) of the Act were not taken into consideration by the Division Bench, which inter alia provide as to how the issue in relation to amount of consideration is finally required to be dealt with by the appropriate authority in a case of this nature. 5. Section 269UG (4) of the Act reads as under: - (4) Where any amount of consideration has been deposited with the appropriate authority under this section, the appropriate authority may, either of its own motion or on an application made by or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
