Law:

Section:

Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Purchase of immovable property by Central Government - Order by appropriate authority - Fourth respondent and appellants entered into an agreement for sale of property-in-question - Appropriate authority, however, passed an order under section 269UD for pre-emptive purchase of said property by Central Government - Appellants filed a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Chapter XXC with consequential prayer to quash order of pre-emptive purchase - Pursuant to High Court's interim order property was sold in a public auction and possession of same was given to purchaser - During pendency of said petition, Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1992] 65 Taxman 440 , upheld constitutional validity of Chapter XXC and held that before an order of compulsory purchase, parties must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing and clarified that said directions were not applicable in cases where public auctions had already been held - When writ petitions were taken up for hearing, appellants' case was that they were not provided with an opportunity before arriving at conclusions - High Court held that because of clarificatory order of Supreme Court, appellants were not entitled to any relief - Whether since property in question had already been sold by public auction before decision in C.B. Gautam's case (supra) and there was no challenge by owner of property, instant appeal was to be dismissed - Held, yes FACTS The fourth respondent and the appellants entered into an agreement of sale in respect of property-in-question. Thereafter, the parties applied to the appropriate authority for no objection certificate. The appropriate authority, however, passed an order under section 269UD for pre-emptive purchase of said property by the Central Government at an amount equal to the apparent consideration. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Chapter XX-C with consequential prayer to quash the order of pre-emptive purchase. The High Court initially stayed the order of purchase but later on by order dated 1-8-1991 said stay was vacated with order to respondent No. 4 to…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492