Court sets aside order under Chapter XX-C for lack of natural justice, rules in favor of petitioners.

The court set aside the order issued under Chapter XX-C as it failed to comply with natural justice principles and lacked fair play. The petitioners were not provided with crucial valuation reports and sale instances, hindering their ability to respond effectively. Additionally, the court criticized the authority for not adequately considering objections regarding fair market value determination. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the order and making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of order under Chapter XX-C
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play
3. Determination of fair market value

Validity of order under Chapter XX-C:
The petitioners entered into an agreement for the sale of a flat and filed an application under Chapter XX-C. The appropriate authority issued a show-cause notice regarding the purchase price, citing sale instances for valuation. The petitioners objected, arguing that the sale instances were not comparable and fair market value was not determined. The authority passed an order directing the purchase of the flat at a higher price, concluding Chapter XX-C applied. The petitioners challenged the order, contending a lack of opportunity to respond to the valuation report and sale instances. The court found the order failed to comply with natural justice principles, lacked fair play, and set it aside.

Compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play:
The court emphasized that the petitioners should have been provided with the valuation report and sale instances to effectively respond to the show-cause notice. Failure to disclose these crucial documents violated natural justice principles and impeded the petitioners' ability to present their case adequately. The court noted that the order's civil consequences necessitated a fair opportunity for the petitioners to address the valuation and sale instances. Due to the authority's failure to provide essential documents, the order was deemed invalid and set aside.

Determination of fair market value:
Regarding the determination of fair market value, the court criticized the appropriate authority for not adequately considering the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the sale instances. The court highlighted the importance of assessing the comparability of sale instances and ensuring a fair market value calculation. The court found the order lacked proper consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners and suffered from non-application of mind. Consequently, the court ruled that the order should be set aside due to the authority's failure to determine the fair market value accurately.

In conclusion, the court held that the petition succeeded, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the petitioners. The court made the rule absolute and decided there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

---