TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAYAN DHINGRA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by T. S. THAKUR J.-In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assails the validity of two separate but similar orders both dated November 29, 1994, passed by the appropriate authority under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for compulsory purchase of property owned by the late Dr. Anand Prakash, comprising two commercial flats bearing Nos. 512 and 512-A, Hemkunt Tower, New Delhi. The petition also makes a claim for payment of damages for the alleged illegal, arbitrary and mala fide withholding of permission prayed for by the petitioner for the transfer of the said property. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be summarised as under: The late Dr. Anand Prakash was the owner of flat Nos. 512 and 512-A, Hemkunt Tower, New Delhi. The said flats were initially leased out to a Government of India undertaking but after the tenant vacated the premises, Dr. Prakash decided to sell the same. The petitioner's case is that since he was insisting on payment of the entire consideration for the flats by cheque/bank draft, he found very few takers for his property. He was, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or providing him the following: (i) a copy of the report of the Valuation Officer in respect of the properties in question. (ii) the details of the instances taken into account by the appropriate authority while issuing the show-cause notices. (iii) inspection of the sale deed of property No. 512, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi, relied upon by the appropriate authority. These requests were, according to the petitioner, rudely turned down. Time for filing of a reply was also reluctantly granted to the petitioner only up to November 21, 1994. A reply was accordingly filed by the petitioner on November 19, 1994, shortly whereafter came the impugned orders dated November 29, 1994, by which the appropriate authority invoked its powers under section 26900(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and purchased the property in question in consideration of the amount disclosed in the applications seeking permission. Possession of the property was pursuant to the said orders taken over by the respondents. The present writ petition was then filed in March 1995. Nearly one year thereafter, the owner Dr. Anand Prakash passed away and was substituted by his widow Smt. Laxmi Anand. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contended that the comparison drawn by the appropriate authority between the property sold in the Ansal's building and that owned by the petitioner, was illogical and irrational and that the comparison deliberately and unfairly overlooked certain stark differences affecting the value of the two properties. In particular, it was argued that the appropriate authority had ignored that Ansal building was a new building in comparison to Hemkunt Tower where the flats owned by the petitioner were situate. The authority had also ignored the deficiencies in the Hemkunt Tower. One of these deficiencies was that buildings in Nehru Place including 98, Hemkunt Tower did not meet the fire safety requirements. No such buildings, however, existed in Ansal Tower with which the property owned by the petitioner was being compared. It was argued on the authority of the decision in C. B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC), that the petitioner was entitled to assail the legality of the order as the compulsory purchase carried a stigma which the petitioner insists, should not attach to his name. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued by Mr. Jolly that there was no illegality in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity of showing cause against any such order. Applying the said principle to the orders of compulsory purchase, different High Courts in the country have held that the requirement of a fair hearing as envisaged by the decision of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530 would require that the affected parties are furnished copies of the material upon which the appropriate authority proposes to place reliance while making an order under section 269UD . We may in this regard refer to the decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) [1979] 118 ITR 134, the High Court of Allahabad in Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Appropriate Authority [1996] 220 ITR 509, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in E. Vittal v. Appropriate Authority [1996] 221 ITR 760 and the High Court of Bombay in Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Grover v. Appropriate Authority (I. T. Dept.) [1997] 223 ITR 572. The courts have in these pronouncements declared that with holding of the relevant information and material which the appropriate authority proposes to rely upon while making an order will violate the principles of natural justice and vitiate the order of compulsory purchase. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner, never furnished and in fact rudely turned down. The respondents have made an evasive denial of the said averments in the following words: "Show-cause notice dated November 9, 1994 fixing hearing for November 16, 1994, was served on the petitioner on November 11, 1994. Hearing on November 16, 1994, was, however, adjourned to November 22, 1994, on the petitioner's request. Thus the petitioner was allowed sufficient time to present his case. All other averments are denied, The objections of the petitioner have been discussed in detail in paras. 3, 4 and 5 of the pre-emptive purchase order i.e., that valuation data prepared by the Valuation Officer is internal exercise by the office of the appropriate authority and all relevant details thereof have been disclosed to the petitioner in the show-cause notice." It is therefore clear that the respondents do not claim to have furnished to the petitioner the information and the documents demanded by the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. Such being the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the documents relied upon by the prescribed authority were denied to the petitioner thereby violating the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uildings included 98, Hemkunt Building where the petitioner's flat was situate but does not include Ansal Tower in which the flat being compared for purposes of compulsory purchase is located. It is also not in dispute that Hemkunt Tower where the petitioner's flats were located was about 20 years old, having been constructed in the year 1970 whereas Ansal Tower with which the said flats were being compared is a new construction. We need not dilate on this aspect and others which the petitioner has pointed out including the reputation of the builders who have raised the said structures. All that we need say is that the facts and circumstances of the case do not in our opinion justify a fresh round of proceedings by the appropriate authority and resultant litigation which has remained pending for over 10 years now. It is, in our opinion, time that we give a quietus to the entire controversy. Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, it is noteworthy, has been deleted from the statute book with the result that no compulsory purchases are permissible post deletion of the said provisions. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of compulsory purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
