Writ appeal dismissed for no failure of justice or statutory non-compliance. Upheld pre-emptive purchase order. Limited judicial interference.

The writ appeal was dismissed as the court found no failure of justice or substantial non-compliance with statutory requirements. The appellant's arguments were rejected, and the pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act was upheld. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference and considered the subsequent sale of the property in a public auction, following precedent that declined interference with transfers during pending writ petitions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Compliance with the requirements of section 269UG(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. The impact of subsequent sale of the property in a public auction.
4. The jurisdiction of the writ court to interfere with the pre-emptive purchase order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The appellant challenged the order of pre-emptive purchase of the property by the Appropriate Authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Appropriate Authority had determined that the market value of the property was around Rs. 400 per sq. ft., significantly higher than the agreed sale price of Rs. 213 per sq. ft. This determination was based on comparable sales in the Rajajinagar and Vijayanagar areas of Bangalore. The learned single judge upheld the order, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Appropriate Authority v. Smt. Sudha Patil, which limited judicial interference to cases where the Authority had either ignored relevant material or considered extraneous material. The appellant did not contest the adequacy of the sale consideration before the appellate court.

2. Compliance with the requirements of section 269UG(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The appellant argued that the Central Government failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 269UG(1), which necessitates tendering the consideration to the entitled persons within one month from the end of the month in which the property vested in the Central Government. The property vested on March 23, 1993, and the consideration was deposited on April 30, 1993. The appellant contended that the deposit was improper as it did not meet the conditions under subsections (2) and (3) of section 269UG, which allow for deposit only in cases of dispute over apportionment or title. The court, however, found that a dispute existed due to the tenant's claim, justifying the deposit with the Appropriate Authority.

3. The impact of subsequent sale of the property in a public auction:
The property was sold in a public auction for Rs. 34,10,000 to M/s. Manipal Sowbhagyanidhi Ltd., while the writ petition was pending. The respondents argued that this subsequent sale rendered the writ petition infructuous. The court noted that the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam and Union of India v. Shatabadi Trading and Investment (P) Ltd. had declined to interfere with transfers effected during the pendency of writ petitions. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction should consider subsequent developments and the equities that had intervened.

4. The jurisdiction of the writ court to interfere with the pre-emptive purchase order:
The learned single judge had ruled that the court's supervisory jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution did not extend to substituting its opinion for that of the Appropriate Authority on matters involving appreciation of evidence. The appellate court upheld this view, stating that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to unsettle a settled position, especially when the appellant had already received the advance amount paid under the agreement. The court found that the procedural compliance with section 269UG was substantial, and the deposit of the consideration was justified due to the tenant's claim.

Conclusion:
The writ appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no failure of justice or substantial non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The appellant's arguments were rejected, and the pre-emptive purchase order was upheld. The court emphasized the importance of considering subsequent developments and the limited scope of judicial interference in such matters.

---