Pre-emptive purchase proceedings require a real hearing on valuation and proper consideration of comparable local sale instances.

In Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase proceedings, a coercive acquisition order cannot stand unless the affected parties receive timely access to the valuation material and a real opportunity to answer the basis of fair market value; the order was therefore set aside and remitted for fresh decision after hearing. Comparable sale instances from the same locality are relevant to valuation, and excluding them merely because they were not transactions under the Act was incorrect; the valuation exercise was vitiated on that ground as well.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C could be sustained when the affected parties were not given timely access to the valuation report and adequate opportunity to respond; (ii) Whether the appropriate authority was justified in ignoring comparable sale instances from the same locality on the ground that they were not transactions under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C could be sustained when the affected parties were not given timely access to the valuation report and adequate opportunity to respond.

Analysis: The valuation material was supplied only shortly before the hearing, which prevented the petitioner and the transferor from making effective comments on the basis adopted for fixing fair market value. In proceedings under Chapter XX-C, a meaningful opportunity to meet the valuation basis is necessary before a coercive pre-emptive purchase order is passed.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained and the matter required reconsideration after giving a proper hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the appropriate authority was justified in ignoring comparable sale instances from the same locality on the ground that they were not transactions under the Act.

Analysis: Comparable sales from the same colony were relevant for judging fair market value, and their exclusion merely because they were not transactions under Chapter XX-C was incorrect. The authority was required to consider all reliable sale instances having bearing on valuation, along with the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion on acquisition.

Conclusion: The exclusion of such sale instances was unjustified and the valuation exercise was vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The impugned pre-emptive purchase order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appropriate authority for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing and considering relevant valuation material.

Ratio Decidendi: In pre-emptive purchase proceedings, the authority must afford a real opportunity to the affected parties to meet the valuation basis and must consider relevant comparable sales bearing on fair market value before passing an acquisition order.

---