9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ona Builders vs. Union of India. Three Special Appeals which have come up for hearing, are (1) DB Civil Special Appeal No. 320/94 - M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India arising out of Writ No. 4667/93; (2) Special Appeal No. 585/96 - Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari vs. Union of India arising out of Writ Petition No. 3492/93 and (3) Special Appeal No. 377/94 - M/s Sona Builders vs. Union of India arising out of Writ Petition No. 1093/94. They are being disposed of by a common order as identical facts and similar questions of law are involved. 2. Writ Petition No. 3492/93 was filed by the vendor Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari for quashing of the show cause notice dt. 21st May, 1993 under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 issued by the Dy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered will dt. 7th July, 1970 duly executed and registered by his father. The appellant had agreed to sell the said immovable property measuring 1,141.25 sq. yds. or 955 sq. mtrs. to M/s Sona Builders for construction of multi-storied building for consideration of ₹ 28,50,000. The purchaser had paid ₹ 9,50,000 as part of the sale consideration. The appellant and all the partners of M/s Sona Builders, Jaipur had submitted the statement of transfer of the immovable property in prescribed Form No. 37-I as provided in r. 48L of the IT Rules, 1962 before the Appropriate Authority under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961 on 9th March, 1993 along with the application for condonation of delay in submitting the said statement as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pre-emptive purchase shall not be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The appellant (petitioner) challenged the validity and legality of the action of the respondents for issuing show cause notice dt. 21st May, 1993 and for passing the order dt. 31st May, 1993 under s. 269UD(1) of the 1961 Act, for purchasing the said immovable property in question by Central Government at an amount equal to the amount of the said consideration. The vendees M/s Sona Builders made similar prayer in its Writ Petition No. 4667/93. 3. Heard counsel for the parties at length. 4. The agreement dt. 11th March, 1992 was neither produced at the time of hearing nor was referred in the agreement dt. 1st Feb., 1993 nor was submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een pointed out and only the points decided by the learned single judge have been reiterated. We do not find anything special to differ from the view expressed by the learned single judge. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision reported in Fedco Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bilgrami AIR 1960 (SC) 415, wherein it was found that even the cancellation of a licence obtained by fraud required that reasonable opportunity to licencee may be given. There is no dispute with the settled principle that no order could be passed without an opportunity of hearing, but the fate of each case depends upon its own facts and in the instant case we are satisfied that full opportunity was given to the vendees as well as vendor. 8. The Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
