TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On July 1, 1994, the petitioners were asked by the Valuation Officer of the appropriate authority to furnish certain information and documents. On July 7, 1994, the petitioners furnished the requisite documents to the Valuation Officer. Thereafter, on September 14, 1994, i.e., virtually after a period of two-and-a-half months, the appropriate authority issued notice under section 269UD(1A) of the Act to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why an order of pre-emptive purchase should not be made of the property under consideration and the appropriate authority fixed the date September 26, 1994, for the hearing of the matter. It is the say of the petitioners that they gave a detailed reply to the above-said show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 4 purchased the said plot for the residential requirements of the members of the said housing society. It is the further say of the petitioners that they received the notice dated September 14, 1994, under section 269UD(1A) of the Act (annexure-G) issued by the appropriate authority, wherein in paragraph 2, the said authority has relied upon one sale instance. The relevant part of the said paragraph 2 is as under : "Your attention is invited to the following sale instance : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Property under Sale instance consideration property -------------------------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale instance is very small to the property under consideration. (ii) The sale instance property is better located as it is situated in the heart of Shahibaug area, while the property under consideration is situated at a distance of more than one kilometre from that plot and is situated at the border of Cantonment area. (iii) The property under consideration is a low-lying plot and during monsoon, rain water would enter into it. (iv) There is a slum area near-about the property under consideration which rules out getting of good sale price, (b) That there is no question of transacting any unaccounted money in the deal. (c) That the total stamp duty is to be borne by the buyer, which would be an additional cost to the buyer. (d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate authority on the sale instance is totally without application of mind because-- (a) the property under consideration is four times bigger plot than the alleged comparative case and, therefore, its market price is always lower ; (b) the property involved in the sale instance is situated in the heart of Shahibaug area ; (c) the property under consideration is a low-lying plot and there is waterlogging in monsoon ; (d) the property under consideration is situated at the end of the civil area ; (e) there is a slum area near the property under consideration ; (f) stamp duty, registration charges and other expenses were payable by the purchaser, which would make the effective price of the property under consideration even more ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair market value of the property under consideration, except stating that there is understatement of apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent. The relevant part of the order is in paragraph 4 thereof, which reads as under : " The permissible F. S. I. of the property under consideration is of 1.5 as per the re-development plan of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Since, the F. S. I. available is 1.5, it is obvious that the built-up area of property under consideration will be more than sale instance property. Moreover, property under consideration is situated on 100' Main Road, whereas the sale instance property is situated on 20' wide private road abutting 60' wide road. Hence, the contention that permissible F. S. I. is 1.0 is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utely a matter of conjecture. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, rightly relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 210 ITR 16, wherein the court has observed that in order to draw an inference of undervaluation, it is necessary to determine first the fair market value of the property in question in the light of all the attending circumstances. Without doing so, it is not only difficult but impossible to say that the apparent consideration is lower than the fair market value by 15 per cent. or more. The figure of fair market value cannot be left to conjectures and surmises, and to justify the order under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
