Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase review limited to perversity and natural justice; valuation upheld on comparable sale evidence.

Judicial review of a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order is limited to jurisdictional error, perversity, irrelevant considerations, or breach of natural justice, and the Court will not reappreciate valuation. Comparable sale instances may be used to determine fair market value with appropriate adjustments for location, time gap, size, and other distinctions. The authority had considered the petitioner's relied-upon instance, explained why it was not comparable, and its valuation finding was not shown to be perverse. The complaint of non-supply of the valuation report also failed because it was not raised before the authority, the notice disclosed the valuation basis, and no denial of a fair opportunity was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order directing pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated because the fair market value was determined on the basis of an incomparable sale instance and by ignoring the petitioner's relied-upon instance; (ii) Whether the order was invalid for breach of natural justice on account of non-supply of the valuation report.

Issue (i): Whether the order directing pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated because the fair market value was determined on the basis of an incomparable sale instance and by ignoring the petitioner's relied-upon instance.

Analysis: Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is confined to the decision-making process and does not permit the Court to sit in appeal over the merits or substitute its own valuation for that of the appropriate authority. Comparable sale instances are a recognised method for determining market value, and suitable adjustments for factors such as location, time gap, size and other relevant distinctions are permissible. The record showed that the authority considered the objections raised, dealt with the petitioner's sale instance, and gave reasons for treating it as not comparable. The finding was neither perverse nor based on irrelevant material.

Conclusion: The challenge on valuation failed and the finding was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order was invalid for breach of natural justice on account of non-supply of the valuation report.

Analysis: The objection regarding non-supply of the valuation report had not been raised before the appropriate authority when objections to the show-cause notice were filed. The basis of the authority's valuation was disclosed in the notice, and the petitioner responded to that material without seeking the report. In these circumstances, the complaint was treated as an afterthought and no denial of a proper opportunity to meet the case was established.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of natural justice failed and the finding was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The pre-emptive purchase order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of a pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C, the Court interferes only for jurisdictional error, perversity, irrelevant considerations, or violation of natural justice, and will not reappreciate valuation where the authority has considered relevant materials and given reasons.

---