TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the exception carved out for completed transactions in C. B. Gautam applied so as to protect the pre-emptive purchase from being invalidated for want of prior hearing; (ii) whether the intending purchasers had locus to challenge the order when the owner did not dispute the acquisition and had accepted compensation.
Issue (i): Whether the exception carved out for completed transactions in C. B. Gautam applied so as to protect the pre-emptive purchase from being invalidated for want of prior hearing.
Analysis: The order of pre-emptive purchase had been followed by taking possession, payment of compensation to the owner, acceptance of that compensation without protest, and confirmation of auction sale to a third party, all before the judgment in C. B. Gautam. The legal principle in C. B. Gautam was that completed transactions of this kind would not be upset despite the absence of hearing. The pendency of the writ petition, by itself, did not prevent completion because no interim relief had been granted and the acquisition proceedings had run their course.
Conclusion: The completed-transaction exception applied and the order was not liable to be invalidated on the ground of breach of natural justice.
Issue (ii): Whether the intending purchasers had locus to challenge the order when the owner did not dispute the acquisition and had accepted compensation.
Analysis: An agreement to sell does not create an interest in the property sufficient to found a challenge in the circumstances of the case. The owner had accepted the acquisition and compensation, the petitioners had not secured interim relief, and the challenge was by agreement-holders rather than by the owner whose property had been compulsorily purchased. The principle applied was that a mere agreement-holder cannot assert a proprietary interest equivalent to ownership for this purpose.
Conclusion: The petitioners lacked a sufficient basis in locus and were not entitled to relief.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where pre-emptive purchase proceedings under Chapter XX-C have been completed by taking possession, payment and acceptance of compensation, and the challenge is by mere agreement-holders rather than the owner, the order will not be invalidated for lack of prior hearing and the petitioners will lack entitlement to relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
