9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . yds. being plot No. A of property No. 101, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The said plot has a dwelling house, servants quarters and a garage on it. She purchased the said dwelling house from one Smt. Malti Singh, vide sale deed dated October 11, 1972, duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. Plot No. 101, Friends Colony, New Delhi, was a large plot of land which was sub-divided into four portions by the previous owner. Smt. Malti Singh sold the other three plots in the same property to different persons for different consideration. The petitioner since then has been in occupation of the dwelling house on plot A as absolute owner with full right, title and interest therein as distinct from the right, title or interest of the owners of other plots B, C and D. The petitioner has also been accepted as full owner of her property by the Wealth-tax Department in her wealth-tax returns. By an order dated October 4, 1980, the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has recognised her as the absolute owner of the property by declaring that there was no excess vacant land in the said plot. By an agreement dated October 9, 1989, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that plot No. A owned by the petitioner and plot No. B owned by Sri Pradeep Narang being contiguous to each other, are necessarily to be considered together and not separately. In fact, plots A and B form a composite property and the division as indicated is irregular and illegal and being violative of the provisions of the Municipal bye-laws. The plots cannot be considered separable in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, as applicable to plot B. The statement in Form No. 37-I for plot A thus is invalid and cannot be acted upon. The appropriate authority further came to the conclusion that on account of the refusal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to permit construction on plot B owned by Shri Pradeep Narang, the sub-division of land in four plots is illegal and the agreement of the petitioner with J. K. Industries for plot A is thus unlawful, particularly when the purchasers of the two portions are also inter-connected. The appropriate authority ultimately held that, in this case, unless the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, has run its course, all actions under the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , examination of the property as it is, the scrutiny of documents from its legal angles and various other factors. Keeping in view the provisions of section 269UL read with section 131 of the Income-tax Act, the appropriate authority is entitled to go into the question that the proposed sale does not suffer from any impediment in law and is not offending any provision of law prohibiting such a transfer. It is not disputed that the appropriate authority has not found the consideration mentioned by the petitioner in the agreement of the petitioner with J. K. Industries to be inadequate. The appropriate authority has also not disputed the ownership of the petitioner of plot No. A. Her case has also been cleared by the. Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, declaring that there is no excess vacant land in the said plot. She says that she has nothing to do with plot B, owned by her son, Shri Pradeep Narang, which is a separate entity. At this stage, we may note that by order dated April 16, 1990, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held the value of plot 'B' at the time of its purchase at Rs. 4,25,000 as a fair valuation. Merely because plot No. A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls to tender or deposit the whole or any part of the amount of consideration required to be tendered thereunder within the specified period, the order of purchase shall stand abrogated and the immovable property shall stand revested in the transferor by virtue of the provisions of section 269UH. It comes to this that in case the appropriate authority does not make an order for the purchase of the property by the Central Government or where the order stands abrogated, the appropriate authority is obliged under section 269UL to issue certificate that it has no objection to the transfer of the immovable property for the consideration stated in the agreement. A bare perusal of the above said provisions of the Act indicates that the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority is only limited to either passing an order within the specified period for purchase of property by the Central It Government for consideration recorded in the agreement or issue of a objection certificate for transfer at that consideration. While considering the statement in Form No. 37-I, the appropriate authority is only to examine the adequacy of the consideration and to decide whether to order purchase or to gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma facie, the appropriate authority acted in excess of its jurisdiction in this behalf. In view of these facts, we are constrained to hold that the appropriate authority which was required to function within the four corners of Chapter XX-C has travelled beyond these limits while holding the petitioner's transaction of sale as illegal. In a similar situation, the Division Bench of this court, in C. W. No. 2576 of 1990,Tanvi Trading and Credits (P.) Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1991] 188 ITR 623, decided on November 28, 1990, held, "we do not find any provision in this Chapter which can enable the appropriate authority to create a situation whereby neither the Government decides to purchase nor does it issue a certificate under section 269UL(3)". This conclusion finds support from the judgment in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board [1966] 36 Comp Cas 639, 685 ; AIR 1967 SC 295, wherein it was held (headnote of AIR) : "Though an order passed in exercise of power under a statute cannot be challenged on the ground of propriety or sufficiency, it is liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fides, dishonesty or corrupt purpose. Even if it is passed in good faith and wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
