Writ petition challenging acquisition of property under Section 269UD(1) of Income Tax Act. Court set aside order for non-application of mind in valuation and remanded matter.
Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Appropriate Authority to determine value afresh within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 906 OF 1995
Suleman Usman Chamadia .. Petitioner V/s
The Appropriate Authority & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. K.B. Bhujale for the Petitioner..
Mr. R. Ashokan for the respondents.
CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27th JULY 2009
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 3rd AUGUST 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.G. Karnik, J.)
2
Town Planning Scheme no.V of Vile Parle (East), Bombay (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”). By an agreement of development dated 17th March 1994, the petitioner agreed to transfer the development rights of the said property to the respondent no.6 for consideration of Rs.66,00,000/to be calculated at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. of the salable area of the building to be constructed. The petitioner then filed the necessary statement in Form no.37-I prescribed under Rule 48-L of the Income Tax Rules to the Appropriate Authority. By an order dated 24th June 1994, the respondent no. 1 passed an order directing purchase of the said property by the Central Government under section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act. That order is impugned in this petition.
3
three sale instances, details of which were already informed to the petitioner by a show cause notice dated 17th March 1995. The petitioner objected to the sale instances inter alia on the ground that they were not comparable. Objections of the petitioner are summarised by the respondent no.1 in para 3(ii) of its order and they are:-
(i) The first sale instance was in respect of a commercial property while the said property was a residential property and to be exploited for residential use. The first sale instance was therefore not comparable.
(ii) The second sale instance was in respect of a land situated at a prime location at Vile Parle (East) and that land was not comparable with the said property.
(iii) The third sale instance was also objected to on the ground that it was of a land having a better location.
4
lane has not been dealt with at all by the respondent no.1. Before passing an order for acquisition, it is incumbent on the respondent no.1 to arrive at the market value of the property.
5
determining the issue afresh in accordance with law. The entire exercise to be completed within three months. The respondents, if they are relying upon any agreement, to make available to the petitioner a copy of the agreement in order to enable him to meet the contents of the same.
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
(FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Appropriate Authority determining fair market rate involved non-application of mind.
Whether the sale instances relied upon were comparable and properly scrutinized for valuation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suleman Usman Chamadia
The Appropriate Authority & Ors.
Ferdino I. Rebello
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
