TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition deputed the Asstt. Valuation Officer, Rohtak for as on the spot enquiry and valuation. The Asstt. Valuation Officer submitted the report under his No. Val/AE/ Report/61 dt.29th Sept., 1973. The Asstt. Valuation Officer valued the property on land and building method. He valued the land at Rs. 19,100 at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard and the building at Rs. 1,07,087 and there by determined the total value of the land and building at Rs. 1,26,187. The IAC, Acquisition (the Competent Authority) on receipt of the valuation report came to the view that the apparent consideration shown in the instrument of transfer was lower by 15per cent and, therefore the provision of s. 269-D were applicable. He, therefore, recorded his reasons to believe on31st Oct., 1973which are as follows: "It is learnt that M/s. Maharaja Printers Pvt. Ltd. purchased a property consisting of land and buildings situated on the mainDelhi Mathura Roadon the 19th K. M. Stone in Faridabad Tahsil in the month of May, 1973 for Rs. 95,000 only. The Asstt. Valuation Officer has reported that the property consists of a piece of land measuring approximately 1910 sq. yards and five sheds, one office building, one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1973but adopted the value of the super structure at Rs. 1,08,087. In response to the notice under s. 269D(1) objections under s. 269E were received from the transferee and the transferor on31st Aug., 1974and31st Dec., 1974respectively. The objections were heard by the then IAC, Acquisition. After the change in the incumbent in the office, the IAC (who has passed the impugned order) issued notice of hearing and discussed case with the counsel of the transferee Shri H.S. Ahuja and the transferor himself. During the acquisition proceedings the IAC, Acquisition referred the matter of valuation to another Asstt. Valuation Officer, who valued the land again at Rs. 19,000 but the building at Rs. 93,702 on rental method on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 1,500, he valued the land and the property at Rs. 1,22,320. This valuation was duly communicated to the transferor and the transferee by the letter of the IAC dt.29th Jan., 1975. The IAC, Acquisition obtained a third valuation report by another Asstt. Valuation Officer who reported the value of the property on land and building method at Rs. 1,03, 978 and on rental basis at Rs. 12,600. This was done after re-inspection on10th June, 1975 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consideration shown being proper, the acquisition proceedings should be dropped. Reliance was placed on the valuation report of the two valuers of the transferee. The IAC, Acquisition, however, did not accept the valuation reports of the two valuers of the assessee because he found that the valuation given by the two valuers was on the lower side. He has discussed the two valuation reports in paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and 10 of his order. The transferee and the transferor both questioned the valuation report of the Govt. Valuer also submitting thereby that the first valuer report was on wrong premises and on equally inaccurate material particulars inasmuch as the sale deed indicated the sale of three sheds whereas the first valuation report indicated that there were five sheds. In support of the argument the transferor submitted that he had spent some money immediately before the sale deed and the transferee also spent about more than Rs. 29,000 on extension of the sheds after the registration of the sale but before the inspection of the property by the Asstt. valuation Officer. The IAC however, brushing aside all objections of both the transferor and transferee as also the valuation re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would be sufficient if the reasons to believe are prima facie reasons. The inadequacy of the material-base for the reasons to believe does not create any infirmity in the reasons to believe of the competent authority. As we are of the view that the IAC, Acquisition had reasons to believe as understood in law, the assume of jurisdiction was in accordance with law and the IAC, Acquisition was within his competence to assume jurisdiction. The order of the IAC, Acquisition for assuming jurisdiction to initiate acquisition proceedings is upheld. 8. Both the Advocates for the transferee and the transferor addressed us at length for days on the different facts of the issues involved and the Departmental Representative also defended the order of the IAC, Acquisition at great length. The valuer of the transferee Shri B.K. Bhojraja was also heard and so was the Asstt. Valuation Officer, Shri Sada Ram. One thing which has struck us at the very outset and continue to influence our mind is that the IAC, Acquisition neither accepted the valuation reports of the two valuers of the transferee nor the valuation reports of the three Asstt. Valuation Officers and the fourth of the Valuation Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
