TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2160 of 1993. Jitendra Jatin, instructed by Shaunak Satpute and Co., for respondent No. 7 in all the writ petitions. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by F. I. Rebello J.— The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2507 of 1993 were the owners of property bearing plot No. 60, survey No. 85, C. S. Nos. 1362, 1362/1 to 1362/8 admeasuring 1819.41 sq. mtrs. together with bungalow and outhouse situated at Versova, Andheri (West), Bombay-400 058 (hereinafter will be referred to as "the property"). These petitioners will hereinafter be referred to as "the owners". 2. The owners entered into an agreement dated June 13, 1983, with one Sardar Bhupender Singh Sethi and Sardar Harbans Singh Kohli (hereinafter be referred to as "the first purchasers"). By the agreement, the petitioners agreed to sell to the first purchasers the property with the structures existing thereon. By a supplementary agreement entered into on September 24, 1986, it was agreed that the owners would be liable to get vacant possession of the premises in occupation of G. K. Makhijani. The owners and the first purchasers applied to the appropriate authority, for no objection certificate in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only) payable to the said Mr. S. C. Belani. (b) a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable to the D. G. Belani. (c) a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) payable to the assignor Mr. B. S. Sethi, and (d) a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) payable to the confirming party Mr. H. S. Kohli, shall be deducted from the amounts payable." 4. On June 15, 1993, the owners, the first purchasers and the second purchasers filed Form No. 37-I with the appropriate authority. On July 29, 1993, according to the petitioners, the District Valuation Officer submitted a report on the valuation of the said property. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3—members of appropriate authority, inspected the property on August 24, 1993. On September 2, 1993, the owners received the show-cause notice dated August 27, 1993, calling upon them to show cause why the property may not be acquired under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. In the show-cause notice, it was stated that the owners may appear before the appropriate authority on September 14, 1993. Reference was made to the agreement dated June 11, 1993, filed with Form No. 37-I. Reference was also made, to the three sale instances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The consideration payable by the Central Government was worked out to Rs. 1,52,62,560 to the parties as per the conditions in the abovementioned agreement dated June 11, 1993, being exhibit "E" to the writ petition. It may be mentioned that in the order the appropriate authority noted that the confirming party (the first purchaser) had made a claim of Rs. 96,00,000 and by a subsequent letter informed that the purchaser have accepted the claim of Rs. 96,00,000. To the application in Form No. 37-I, the agreement of June 11, 1993, was annexed. 7. On receipt of the order dated September 22, 1993, the owners by their letter dated October 15, 1993, requested respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not to take any further steps as the owners desired to challenge the said order. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 informed the owners and the second purchaser that as no order has been passed by the court, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 will be taking possession of the premises by force on October 22, 1993 which was received on October 22, 1993. By letter dated October 25, 1993, the owners were informed that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had taken possession of the property excluding the area occupied by the nine tenants. Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upender Singh Sethi and Sardar Harbans Singh Kohli were to receive totally a sum of Rs. 1,55,00,000. Out of this Sardar Harbans Singh Kohli was to receive Rs. 63,00,000 and in addition according to the petitioners, compensation in respect of five tenement which was to be mutually agreed between Sardar Harbans Singh Kohli and the second purchasers. Similarly, the owners were to receive free of cost an area of 1,500 square feet each, i.e., a total area of 3,000 square feet from the second purchaser. 10. Subsequent to the order dated September 22, 1993, the following claims were made before the appropriate authority. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2160 of 1993, Harbans Singh Kohli, one of the first purchasers, by his letter dated October 22, 1983, addressed to the appropriate authority made a demand in the sum of Rs. 96,00,000. Similarly, on behalf of Mr. Harbans Singh Kohli, one of the first purchasers, their counsel addressed a letter dated October 27, 1993, to the appropriate authority to pay their clients compensation of Rs. 96,00,000 which the intending purchaser (the second purchaser) had agreed to pay to their client as confirmed by letter dated September 18, 1993 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 'the transferors had failed to fulfil and tender title deeds and other title documents'." 14. It is submitted that failure to pay the apparent consideration without there being any dispute by persons entitled to receive within the period specified under section 269UG(1), will render the acquisition order abrogated in accordance with the provisions of section 269UH(1). It is, therefore, submitted that this court be pleased to declare the order of acquisition as abrogated and that the immovable property stands revested in the transferor in accordance with the provisions of section 269UH(2). 15. To answer the issue, we may make reference to some additional jurisdictional facts. Pursuant to the owners submitting application in Form No. 37-I on June 15, 1993, a notice was served by the appropriate authority on the owners, first and second purchasers on August 22, 1993, to show cause why order should not be made in accordance with the provisions of section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The second purchaser by communication dated September 18, 1993, informed the appropriate authority that there was no undervaluation and as such the notice served should be withdrawn. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amongst persons entitled to apparent consideration as to the amount they have to receive, consequently it was within the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority to have deposited the amount in terms of section 269UG. 20. We may now gainfully refer to the relevant provisions of section 269UG, which read as under: "269UG. (1) 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 . . . (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of consideration amongst persons claiming to be entitled thereto, the Central Government shall deposit with the appropriate authority the amount of consideration required to be tendered under sub-section (1) within the period specified therein. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the person entitled to the amount of consideration does not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on September 22, 1993 and consequent to the order of acquisition, possession was taken on October 25, 1993, the Central Government by law, considering the provisions of section 269UG(1) had to tender the apparent consideration by October 31, 1993. That was not done and instead the amount was deposited on October 29, 1993, by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the order of acquisition stood abrogated. 23. On these facts, because, the amount was not offered to the persons entitled to receive it within the time stipulated, can it be said that the order of acquisition stands abrogated by virtue of section 269UH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 24. Before we answer the issue, we may refer to the judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners. In Union of India v. Dr. A. K. Garg [2002] 256 ITR 660 (SC), properties were acquired and the amount was tendered by the Central Government on September 6, 1993. This tender was beyond the stipulated period under section 269UG. The Supreme Court held that this would attract the wrath of section 269UH of the Act resulting in abrogation of the purchase order. The defence of the Department was that the amount had been deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the suit if declared a tenant of the property in which event he would be a person interested. The Supreme Court held that this was irrelevant. We are of the opinion that a mere suit challenging the order of purchase cannot give rise to dispute not to offer the compensation to the person entitled. The dispute must be either to the title or apportionment of compensation. A mere challenge to an order of acquisition cannot be considered to be a dispute within the meaning of section 269UG. 29. The question is, considering the order dated September 22, 1993, the operative part of which reads as under: "The consideration payable by the Central Government is thus Rs. 1,52,62,560 (rupees one crore fifty-two lakhs sixty-two thousand five hundred and sixty only). This shall be payable to the parties after conditions laid down in clause 11 of the agreement are satisfied." and the order of deposit whether refers to section 269UG(3), can it be said that there was a dispute as to apportionment or title. 30. We have already reproduced the order of deposit. In the matter of apportionment of amount of compensation, there was certainly a dispute. There were claims by three claimants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
