9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the ULC Act"), declared the subject land to be excess vacant land. On March 31, 1987, petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 made an application to the State Government for exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act in respect of the subject land, which came to be sanctioned by an order dated October 10, 1990. Petitioner No. 8 entered into agreement of assignment on May 13, 1992, with M/s. Ellora Constructions for development and sale of the subject land for a consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs. In respect of the said agreement of assignment, the petitioners filed their statement in Form No. 37-I of the Act. Respondent No.1-Appropriate Authority passed order dated July 31, 1992, under section 269UD(1) of the Act declaring its intention to purchase the subject land for a net consideration of Rs. 17,08,169. Initially, M/s. Ellora Construction challenged the said order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1992 which came to be disposed of on April 1, 1993, by directing the Appropriate Authority to initiate proceedings in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated April 28, 1993, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, being Writ Petition No. 8333 of 2005, which came to be dismissed by an order dated September 5, 2006, on the ground that the remedy for the petitioners is to file a petition before the Gujarat High Court as the order under challenge had been passed by the Competent Authority in Ahmedabad though the property was situated in Pune. Thereafter, the petitioners have presented the present petition before this court. Mr. Bhargav Karia, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the initial order under section 269UD(1) of the Act had been made on April 18, 1993. In view of the provisions of section 269UF of the Act, where an order for the purchase of immovable property by the Central Government is made under sub-section (1) of section 269UD, the Central Government is required to pay by way of consideration for such purchase, an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration. The Central Government had, accordingly, fixed the amount at Rs. 17,08,169. By virtue of the pro- visions of section 269UG of the Act, the amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Ellora Constructions and passing of the order dated October 14, 2005, section 269UE(2) of the Act for the execution of the order under section 269UD(1) of the Act, that the petitioner has thought it fit to challenge the stay order as well as the earlier order dated April 28, 1993, and as such after this length of time the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Next it was submitted that under the provisions of section 269UG of the Act, the amount of consideration as payable under section 269UF is required to be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the immovable property stands vested in the Central Government. Before the aforesaid period of one month was over, M/s. Ellora Constructions had approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition, wherein further proceeding had been stayed. Under the circumstances, the Appropriate Authority was precluded from tendering the amount of consideration in relation to the subject land. It was contended that once the period of one month from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment from the date of such order. A perusal of the impugned order dated April 28, 1993, indicates that the net consideration payable by the Central Government for purchase of the subject property as contemplated under section 269UF of the Act was determined at Rs. 17,08,169 including Rs. 2,75,000 payable to the transferee paid as earnest money. Section 269UG of the Act makes provision for "Payment or deposit of consideration" and postulates that the amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269UF shall be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the immovable property concerned becomes vested in the Central Government under sub-section (1), or, as the case may be, sub-section (6) of section 269UE. In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the consideration for purchase of immovable property as determined under section 269UF of the Act has not been paid to the petitioner till date. Considering the fact that the order under section 269UD of the Act had been passed on April 28, 1993, in view of the provisions of section 269UG, the consideration det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the Appropriate Authority. However, there was no material to show that the same was tendered or offered to the parties concerned. On behalf of the Central Government reliance was placed a letter in regard to the amount to be tendered or deposited in terms of section 269UG of the Act whereby the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, had been authorised to tender the amount, on the basis of which it was claimed that the apparent consideration had been tendered to the vendor in time. The Supreme Court observed that all that was sought to be done by the letter was that the Chief Commissioner is authorised by the Central Government to tender the amount to the party and that there was no material to show that such offer was made within the stipulated period under section 269UG of the Act and dismissed the appeal. In Hotel Mardias P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 94 (Guj), a Division Bench of this court has held thus (pages 97 and 98) : "Assuming that the order under section 269UD(1) has been made in accordance with law under section 269UG it is required that the amount of consideration payable to the person entitled to such consideration within a peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in view of the provisions of section 269UG, the amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269UF was required to be tendered within a period of one month from the end of the month in which such vesting took place, that is, within one month from the end of April, 1993. In other words, the amount was required to be tendered by the end of May, 1993. It is an undisputed position that the said amount has not been tendered till date. As noted earlier, no stay had been granted by the Bombay High Court till August, 1993, and as such, the respondent-Appropriate Authority was not in any manner restrained from complying with the provisions of section 269UG of the Act even at the relevant time when the order under section 269UD of the Act came to be passed. Assuming for the sake of argument that since proceedings had been filed by M/s. Ellora Constructions before the Bombay High Court before the stipulated period of one month was over, which was entertained and as such pending the litigation the respondents could not proceed further and tender the amount, at best, the period during which the writ petition was pending could be excluded. The facts reveal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
