Procedural fairness in pre-emptive purchase and equitable interest on delayed consideration shape the relief discussed in the property dispute.

Procedural fairness is required before a pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XXC can stand, and the absence of reasonable opportunity or material irregularity may justify setting it aside. The note also recognises that where an immovable-property vendor is kept out of unpaid consideration because of acquisition proceedings and is not at fault, equity may support an award of interest for the period of deprivation. On the facts discussed, the challenge to the purchase order failed, while the vendor obtained partial relief in the form of interest on the delayed payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the purchase order under section 269UD(1) could be interfered with for want of reasonable opportunity and procedural irregularities; (ii) whether the vendor was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance of consideration during the period the amount remained unpaid because of the acquisition proceedings.

Issue (i): whether the purchase order under section 269UD(1) could be interfered with for want of reasonable opportunity and procedural irregularities.

Analysis: The order of pre-emptive purchase had already been set aside by the learned single judge on the ground that reasonable opportunity had not been granted and that the proceedings suffered from irregularities. The appeal did not persuade the Court to take a different view, especially as the authority did not appear and no basis was shown to disturb the finding on violation of the requirement of reasonable opportunity under Chapter XXC.

Conclusion: The challenge to the setting aside of the purchase order failed and the finding in favour of the respondents was sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the vendor was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance of consideration during the period the amount remained unpaid because of the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The agreements provided for staged payment of consideration, but a substantial balance remained unpaid for a long period because possession and conveyancing were affected by the acquisition proceedings and court orders. The Court applied the equitable principle recognised in earlier decisions that where the seller is not at fault and is kept out of the purchase money because of such proceedings, interest may be awarded at an appropriate rate, with the rate and period depending on the facts. On the facts, equity justified interest on the amount withheld by reason of the proceedings, while the separate contractual balance payable at conveyance carried its own agreed interest component.

Conclusion: The vendor was entitled to interest at 12% per annum for the specified period on the unpaid amount, and the cross-objection succeeded to that extent only.

Final Conclusion: The appeal against the setting aside of the purchase orders was rejected, while the vendor obtained partial monetary relief by way of interest on the delayed consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where consideration for an immovable property remains unpaid because of acquisition proceedings and the vendor has not obstructed the transaction, equity may warrant award of interest at an appropriate rate for the period of deprivation.

---