Court quashes erroneous land purchase orders, directs payment for possession.

The court quashed the impugned orders dated March 30, 1995, and March 31, 1995, as they were found to contain errors and were unsustainable. The orders for purchasing lands without considering relevant sale instances were deemed invalid. The petitioners succeeded in their case, and the court directed them to make the necessary payment by a specified date for possession of the land with the appropriate certificate under section 269UL(3).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned orders under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Consideration of comparable sale instances for determining fair market value.
3. Requirement of specifying grounds in the order for purchase under section 269UD(1B).
4. Relevance of sale instances not subject to Chapter XX-C proceedings.
5. Compliance with procedural requirements for issuing a writ of certiorari.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Orders under Section 269UD(1):
The court found that the impugned orders dated March 30, 1995, and March 31, 1995, suffered from errors on the face of the record and could not be sustained. The orders were passed for purchasing the lands in question without considering relevant sale instances presented by the petitioners. The orders were quashed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

2. Consideration of Comparable Sale Instances for Determining Fair Market Value:
The court observed that the appropriate authority failed to consider the sale instances of immovable properties situated in Wadachi Wadi village, which were pointed out by the petitioners. These instances were relevant for determining the fair market value of the property under consideration. The authority instead relied on a sale instance from a different village (Undree), which is a superior location and situated about 10 kms away from the property in question. The court emphasized that it was not permissible to treat a distant property as comparable without discarding the available material in the same locality.

3. Requirement of Specifying Grounds in the Order for Purchase under Section 269UD(1B):
The court highlighted that sub-section (1B) of section 269UD requires the appropriate authority to specify the grounds on which the order for purchase is made. This involves more than merely rejecting objections; it requires a positive finding on the fair market value of the property and whether the consideration is understated by more than 15% to evade tax. The appropriate authority failed to provide such grounds, rendering the orders non-compliant with statutory requirements.

4. Relevance of Sale Instances Not Subject to Chapter XX-C Proceedings:
The court noted that the appropriate authority refused to consider sale instances presented by the petitioners on the ground that those transactions were not subject to the provisions of Chapter XX-C. The court clarified that whether those sale instances could have been the subject of proceedings under Chapter XX-C had no bearing on their relevance for determining the fair market value of the property in question. The authority's refusal to consider these instances was an error.

5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Issuing a Writ of Certiorari:
The court stated that it was not acting as a court of appeal but was correcting an error apparent on the face of the record. The appropriate authority ignored relevant material and relied on irrelevant grounds, justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The court cited the apex court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India, emphasizing that the powers under Chapter XX-C are intended to counter attempts to evade tax and require a presumption of significant undervaluation, which is rebuttable.

Conclusion:
The petitions succeeded, and the impugned orders were quashed. The petitioners were directed to make the requisite payment to the appropriate authority by October 25, 1995, after which possession of the land would be delivered to them with the appropriate certificate under section 269UL(3).

---