Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order of compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be entertained in view of subsequent events, namely the auction sale fetching a substantially higher price.
Analysis: The petitioners assailed the pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but during the pendency of the writ petition the property was put to auction and the highest bid was far above the sale consideration agreed between the parties. The Court held that subsequent events could be taken into account in writ jurisdiction. It further held that the draft development plan did not affect the auction price in a manner sufficient to displace the effect of the later auction sale. In these circumstances, the auction price being about 150 per cent above the petitioners' agreed price, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for effective relief in view of the subsequent auction sale and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent events may be considered in writ proceedings, and where they demonstrate that granting relief would be futile or inequitable, the Court may refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction.