Objective undervaluation finding is essential for pre-emptive purchase; unsupported comparable sales cannot justify vesting orders.

Pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C is sustainable only where the Appropriate Authority makes a reasoned, objective finding on relevant material that the apparent consideration is understated by the statutory margin. Mere rejection of objections or reliance on a purportedly comparable sale is insufficient if the instance is materially different in development, frontage, shape, size, or transfer expenses. On the facts noted, the authority failed to record adequate reasons or supporting material for concluding that undervaluation exceeded 15 per cent, so the pre-emptive purchase order and consequential vesting order were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C and the consequential vesting order were sustainable when the Appropriate Authority allegedly relied on an unsuitable comparable sale instance and did not record a positive, objective finding of undervaluation exceeding 15 per cent.

Analysis: The statutory power under section 269UD is conditioned on an objective decision-making process based on relevant material and a definite conclusion that the apparent consideration is understated by the prescribed margin. Mere rejection of the parties' objections is not enough; the authority must disclose material showing why the property is undervalued. On the facts, the authority treated the sale instance as comparable despite material differences in commercial development, frontage, shape, size, and transfer expenses, and further failed to record adequate reasons or supporting material for concluding that the understatement exceeded 15 per cent. The order therefore suffered from legal error and did not satisfy the statutory requirement of objective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The pre-emptive purchase order and the consequential vesting order were unsustainable and had to be quashed; the petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C can be sustained only if the Appropriate Authority records a reasoned, objective finding based on relevant material that the property is undervalued by the statutory margin; mere disagreement with the parties' objections or an unsupported comparison with an allegedly comparable sale instance is insufficient.

---