Writ interference with perverse valuation may justify remand for fresh valuation on proper comparables within fixed time.
A writ court may interfere with a pre-emptive purchase valuation where the assessment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on irrelevant and mutually conflicting comparisons, especially when relevant material has not been properly considered and no effective appellate remedy is available. The note also records that, in a suitable factual matrix under the time-bound Chapter XX-C scheme, the matter may be remitted for a fresh valuation rather than left without further examination. The court treated the peculiar facts as justifying a fresh valuation on proper comparable residential property within a fixed time.
Issues: (i) Whether the valuation made by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction for perversity, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice; (ii) whether, after setting aside the impugned valuation, the matter could be sent back for a fresh valuation.
Issue (i): Whether the valuation made by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction for perversity, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice.
Analysis: The valuation was found to rest on inconsistent and mutually conflicting bases, including comparison between residential property and commercial property in dissimilar localities. The court found that relevant material had not been properly addressed and that the approach suffered from ambiguity and elements of surmise and conjecture. In these circumstances, the court held that the writ court could interfere where the valuation was perverse, capricious, or based on irrelevant considerations, especially as no appellate remedy was available.
Conclusion: The impugned valuation was liable to be interfered with and could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether, after setting aside the impugned valuation, the matter could be sent back for a fresh valuation.
Analysis: The court considered the time-bound scheme under Chapter XX-C and the authorities relied upon to contend that no further exercise could be undertaken after expiry of the statutory period. On the facts, however, the court treated the case as one warranting a third course, namely, remand for a fresh valuation on proper comparable residential accommodation. The court held that the balancing of equities and the peculiar factual matrix justified directing the authority to proceed afresh within a fixed time.
Conclusion: The matter could be remanded for fresh valuation.
Final Conclusion: The impugned valuations were set aside and the appropriate authority was directed to make a fresh valuation within the time fixed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere with a pre-emptive purchase valuation where the assessment is perverse or founded on irrelevant comparisons, and in an appropriate factual setting it may remit the matter for fresh valuation within a court-fixed time.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
