Completed transfer and writ review of valuation findings under Chapter XX-C require proof of legal transfer and no perversity.

For a transaction to escape Chapter XX-C on the basis that it was completed before the Chapter became operative in Bangalore, the transferee had to prove an actual completed transfer under the general law; a mere agreement to sell or asserted delivery of possession was insufficient without proof of completion in the legal sense. The Court also stated that, when Chapter XX-C was not yet operative locally, completion had to be tested under the Transfer of Property Act rather than by mechanically applying the special definition in section 269UA. On valuation, the Appropriate Authority's finding could be interfered with only if it ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, lacked evidence, or was perverse; no such ground was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of immovable property was completed before Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act became applicable to Bangalore, so as to exclude the transaction from the Chapter; and (ii) whether the Appropriate Authority's valuation finding that the apparent consideration was more than 15 per cent below market value called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of immovable property was completed before Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act became applicable to Bangalore, so as to exclude the transaction from the Chapter.

Analysis: The agreement relied on was executed before Chapter XX-C came into force in Bangalore, but the transaction was not shown to have resulted in a completed transfer under the general law. The Court held that, when Chapter XX-C was not yet operative in the area, the question whether there was a completed transfer had to be tested under the Transfer of Property Act, and not by mechanically applying the special definition in section 269UA. A sale of immovable property of the relevant value required a registered instrument, and mere agreement with alleged delivery of possession did not by itself establish completion. The materials in Form No. 37-I and the agreement itself created doubt about prior delivery of possession, and the petitioners failed to establish that possession had in fact been delivered before the statutory regime came into force.

Conclusion: The contention that Chapter XX-C did not apply was rejected, and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appropriate Authority's valuation finding that the apparent consideration was more than 15 per cent below market value called for interference.

Analysis: The Court found that the Appropriate Authority had considered the material placed before it, including the petitioners' comparable instances and objections, and had recorded reasons for arriving at the market rate. The challenge was essentially to a finding of fact. In writ jurisdiction, interference is warranted only where relevant material is ignored, irrelevant material is relied upon, the finding is based on no evidence, or the conclusion is one that no reasonable person could reach. None of those grounds was established on the record.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the valuation finding was made out, and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the compulsory purchase order failed on both the applicability of Chapter XX-C and the valuation objection, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a transaction to escape Chapter XX-C on the ground that it was completed before the Chapter became operative in the area, the transferee must establish an actual completed transfer under the general law; a mere agreement to sell or asserted possession, without proof of completion in the legal sense, is insufficient. In writ review, a valuation finding by the Appropriate Authority is not interfered with unless it is unsupported by evidence, ignores relevant material, or is perverse.

---