Prior disclosure of comparable sale instances is essential in compulsory purchase proceedings; late disclosure breaches natural justice and invalidates the order.

In compulsory purchase proceedings under Chapter XX-C, prior disclosure of the comparable sale instances relied on is required so the affected party has a fair opportunity to meet the material; disclosure only at the hearing was treated as a breach of natural justice and the order was invalid. The order was also found unsustainable on merits because it did not analyse material features relevant to fair comparison, including the building, floor position, construction details, amenities, parking, view and surroundings, or explain how those factors established undervaluation. The impugned compulsory purchase order was quashed and the authority was directed to issue the no objection certificate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order directing compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated for breach of natural justice inasmuch as the comparable sale instances were not disclosed before the hearing; (ii) Whether the compulsory purchase order could be sustained on merits in the absence of material particulars enabling fair comparison of the property.

Issue (i): Whether the order directing compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C was vitiated for breach of natural justice inasmuch as the comparable sale instances were not disclosed before the hearing.

Analysis: The decision to compulsorily purchase property under Chapter XX-C affects valuable rights and must be preceded by a fair opportunity to meet the material relied upon. The opportunity to defend necessarily includes prior disclosure of the comparable instances proposed to be used for judging undervaluation. Here, the instances were first disclosed only at the hearing, leaving no effective chance to answer them.

Conclusion: The order was vitiated for breach of natural justice and cannot be sustained against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the compulsory purchase order could be sustained on merits in the absence of material particulars enabling fair comparison of the property.

Analysis: Fair valuation required consideration of relevant features such as the building, floor position, construction details, amenities, parking, view, and surroundings. The order recorded reliance on sale instances without analysing these characteristics or explaining how they justified a finding of undervaluation. In the absence of such comparative reasoning, the merits of the order were also unsound.

Conclusion: The compulsory purchase order could not be sustained on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned compulsory purchase order was quashed and the authority was directed to issue the no objection certificate in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C, the affected party must receive prior disclosure of the comparable sale instances and a fair opportunity to meet them, failing which the order is invalid.

---