Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase upheld where valuation was rational, jurisdiction remained intact, and judicial review stayed limited.

Under Chapter XX-C, the pre-emptive purchase order was upheld because the authority considered relevant comparables, market conditions, and the petitioners' objections, and its valuation finding that the apparent consideration was materially below fair market value was not shown to be perverse. A short contractual period for completion did not oust jurisdiction under section 269UD(1), since the statutory scheme depends on the nature and value of the transfer, not the agreement's time limit. Judicial review under article 226 remained confined to the decision-making process, so no interference was warranted. The wife and daughter of the transferor were entitled to payment of the earmarked amount with proportionate interest from deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated by failure to consider relevant factors and by adoption of an improper valuation method; (ii) Whether the appropriate authority lacked jurisdiction to act under section 269UD(1) because the agreement fixed a short period for completion; (iii) Whether the impugned order was liable to be interfered with in judicial review under article 226; (iv) Whether the wife and daughter of the transferor were entitled to a direction for payment of the amount earmarked for them under the agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated by failure to consider relevant factors and by adoption of an improper valuation method.

Analysis: The authority compared the subject property with comparable sales in the same locality, considered the fall in the real estate market, and dealt with the objections relating to location, accessibility, tenancy, alleged distress sale, and claimed comparable instances produced by the petitioners. The objections were examined and rejected on reasons found to be relevant and supported by the materials on record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order on merits failed and the finding that the apparent consideration was materially below fair market value was sustained against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the appropriate authority lacked jurisdiction to act under section 269UD(1) because the agreement fixed a short period for completion.

Analysis: The short contractual period for completion did not take the transaction outside Chapter XX-C. The statutory scheme turned on the nature and value of the transfer, and not on the mere stipulation of a shorter time for performance in the agreement.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order was liable to be interfered with in judicial review under article 226.

Analysis: Judicial review in this area is confined to the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Interference is justified only where relevant material is ignored, extraneous material is relied upon, there is no evidence, or the conclusion is perverse. On the facts, the authority considered the relevant material and its conclusion was neither arbitrary nor perverse.

Conclusion: No interference under article 226 was warranted and the writ petitions challenging the acquisition were dismissed.

Issue (iv): Whether the wife and daughter of the transferor were entitled to a direction for payment of the amount earmarked for them under the agreement.

Analysis: The agreement itself earmarked a sum for the wife and daughter, the amount was lying in deposit, and there was no dispute regarding their entitlement. In the circumstances, a direction for immediate payment was necessary to prevent further hardship.

Conclusion: The wife and daughter were held entitled to payment of Rs. 17,00,000 with proportionate interest from the deposited amount.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase order failed, but the connected directions for disbursal of the earmarked amount to the wife and daughter of the transferor were granted, leaving only the balance to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Chapter XX-C, judicial review under article 226 is limited to examining whether the authority considered relevant materials and adopted a rational process; the High Court will not reappreciate valuation or substitute its own conclusion where the authority's finding is supported by comparable material and is not perverse.

---