9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the latter agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 180 lakhs from the former. A sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was received by the fifth respondent as earnest money from the intending purchasers. On October 21, 1991, a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed before the appropriate authority which was signed by respondent No. 5 as transferor and by the petitioner and others as transferees. Thereafter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the purchaser of the property and the other as tenant and he is challenging the impugned orders in both the capacities. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and for respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the pre-emptive purchase order inasmuch as he had waived his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also accepted the position that he will get the refund of the advance payment from the transferor, in the event of payment of full consideration to respondent No. 5 by the Union of India. Again the letter dated January 8, 1992, clearly reveals that the petitioner did not feel aggrieved of the purchase of the property by the Union of India under section 269UD(1) of the 1961 Act, rather the letter s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the sale consideration. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the pre-emptive purchase order and accordingly decline the prayer of the petitioner in this behalf. In so far as the eviction order dated December 30, 1991, asking the petitioner to hand over possession of the property is concerned, the matter is remanded to the appropriate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
