TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Cuttack Town was sold under Sale Deed No. 2309 dated May 15, 1973, for a consideration of Rs. 1, 15,000 by Kooverji K. Rath or in favour of Himanshu V. Rathor and K. R. Rathor. The vendees were minors and were represented by their respective fathers to complete the transaction of sale. The Competent Authority under the Act on getting information from the District Sub-Registrar under s. 269P of the Act being of the view that the sale was for an apparent consideration which was less than the fair market value of the property, initiated a proceeding under Chap. XX-A of the Act. The Competent Authority initiated acquisition proceedings in terms of s. 269C by publishing a notice in the Gazette of India on November 24, 1973. Copies of such noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer on several grounds, but the Competent Authority did not agree to vary the valuation. Accordingly, an order was made on March 31,1976, in exercise of powers under s. 269F(6) of the Act for an acquisition of the property. An appeal was carried against that order to the Tribunal under s. 269G of the Act. Three contentions were raised in support of the appeal: (i) the Gazette notification dated November 24, 1973, was materially defective and inoperative in law; (ii) the determination of fair market value on the date of transfer was arbitrarily high; and (iii) the acquisition proceedings were not applicable to the instant transfer as the same was saved by the provisions of s. 269 of the Act. The Tribunal did not examine th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the 10 decimals. The Tribunal relied upon this mistake and proceeded on the footing that as the notice was a condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, and since the notice was defective and bad, the entire proceeding was vitiated. Accordingly, it vacated the order of acquisition. Learned standing counsel contended before us that conceding that the notice was defective in regard to the 10 decimals, since there was no mistake in regard to the 71 decimals, the acquisition could have been confined to it. We do not think, there is force in this argument. It is not known whether the house stood on 71 decimals or 10 decimals or on both. There is no material before us to allocate the total consideration between the two plots. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record. There is, however, no proof of publication. Sub-s. (1) of s. 269D makes publication in the Gazette mandatory and a condition precedent to the making of an order of acquisition. If the corrigendum had to be issued, strictly speaking, it required publication in the Gazette. In fact, a request to that effect had been made by the department. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken pains to find out whether there was an actual publication prior to the making of the order of acquisition. This aspect of the matter requires further investigation. Several authorities were placed before us in support of the contention that on an appropriate notice being given, jurisdiction to make the order of acquisition could arise. Since the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
