Comparable sale instances and composite transfer analysis sustained Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase despite undervaluation challenge.

Comparable sale instances can justify treating declared consideration as undervalued under Chapter XX-C where they indicate a materially higher market rate and no reliable evidence shows a sufficient market movement to explain the gap. In the same dispute, a flat purchase described in the agreement and contemporaneous Form No. 37-I as a single composite transaction was not converted into separate acquisitions of undivided shares merely by argument, so the jurisdictional objection to Chapter XX-C failed. The pre-emptive purchase challenge was therefore rejected in substance because both undervaluation and applicability of the statutory scheme were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appropriate authority was justified in treating the agreed consideration as undervalued on the basis of comparable sale instances and in invoking pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C; (ii) whether the agreement was a composite transaction or a series of separate purchases of undivided shares so as to take the case outside the jurisdictional threshold of Chapter XX-C.

Issue (i): whether the appropriate authority was justified in treating the agreed consideration as undervalued on the basis of comparable sale instances and in invoking pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C.

Analysis: The agreement was executed on 12 July 1993, but the entire consideration had already been paid and possession had been delivered without obtaining the statutory no objection certificate. The authority relied on two sale instances in the same society, one being an auction sale on 8 September 1993 and the other a sale on 24 September 1993, both showing a substantially higher rate per square foot than the declared consideration. No reliable material was produced to show that prices in Pune had risen by more than 30 per cent. in the short interval relied upon by the petitioners. The sale instances were held to be adequate indicators of market value and the difference exceeded the statutory margin.

Conclusion: The finding of undervaluation and the invocation of pre-emptive purchase were upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the agreement was a composite transaction or a series of separate purchases of undivided shares so as to take the case outside the jurisdictional threshold of Chapter XX-C.

Analysis: The agreement described one composite transaction for Flat No. 10 and did not show that each purchaser separately agreed to buy an identifiable one-third undivided share. The contemporaneous Form No. 37-I and the valuation material submitted by the purchasers themselves treated the property as jointly owned with undivided shares. The attempted reliance on authorities concerning quantified or separately conveyed shares was rejected because the facts there were materially different.

Conclusion: Chapter XX-C was held applicable and the jurisdictional objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase order failed in all material respects, and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transaction is shown by the agreement and contemporaneous material to be a single composite transfer, and comparable sales disclose a market value materially above the stated consideration, Chapter XX-C applies and the authority may sustain pre-emptive purchase.

---