Judicial review of pre-emptive purchase orders is limited to valuation process errors, natural justice breaches, or irrational conclusions.

Judicial review of a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order is confined to the decision-making process, so interference is justified only for ignored material, reliance on irrelevant material, breach of natural justice, statutory violation, or an irrational conclusion. A valuation based on proximate comparable sale instances, with deductions for size, development and time gap, was upheld as neither arbitrary nor perverse, and the finding of undervaluation was sustained. Non-supply of the valuation report, alleged inadequate opportunity, and non-hearing of an interested co-owner did not vitiate the proceedings where the essential basis had been disclosed and no prejudice was shown. Limited interest relief was granted to the vendor.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C could be interfered with under Article 226 on the grounds of irrational valuation, ignored material, or procedural illegality; (ii) whether the valuation based on comparable sale instances, with deductions for size, development, and time gap, was arbitrary or legally unsustainable; (iii) whether non-supply of the valuation report, alleged absence of adequate opportunity, and omission to hear an interested co-owner vitiated the proceedings, and whether the vendor was entitled to interest-related relief.

Issue (i): Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C could be interfered with under Article 226 on the grounds of irrational valuation, ignored material, or procedural illegality.

Analysis: Judicial review in such matters is confined to examining the decision-making process. Interference is warranted only where relevant material is ignored, irrelevant material is relied upon, natural justice is breached, a statutory requirement is violated, or the conclusion is one that no reasonable authority could reach on the material before it. The Appropriate Authority being a quasi-judicial multi-member body, the Court does not sit in appeal over the valuation or substitute its own conclusion for that of the Authority.

Conclusion: The pre-emptive purchase order was not liable to be set aside on the ground of excess or improper exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation based on comparable sale instances, with deductions for size, development, and time gap, was arbitrary or legally unsustainable.

Analysis: The comparable sale instance relied upon by the Authority was found sufficiently proximate in locality and nature to support comparison, while the other instances cited by the appellants were treated as dissimilar or unreliable. The Authority also considered the large size of the property, the need for sub-division, and the likely reduction of saleable area for roads and civic amenities. On either valuation method adopted by the Authority, the apparent consideration was found to be substantially below the assessed value, indicating significant undervaluation. The Court held that the valuation approach was neither irrational nor perverse.

Conclusion: The valuation and the consequent finding of undervaluation were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether non-supply of the valuation report, alleged absence of adequate opportunity, and omission to hear an interested co-owner vitiated the proceedings, and whether the vendor was entitled to interest-related relief.

Analysis: The basis of the tentative conclusion was sufficiently disclosed in the show cause notice, and the material relied upon for comparison was communicated. Non-supply of the valuation report did not cause prejudice where the essential basis of the decision had been made known. The time available was held to be adequate for a summary proceeding, and no material violation of natural justice was established. As to the alleged co-owner, no effective participation or objection was shown so as to invalidate the process. On the vendor's side, however, the Court held that she was entitled to limited monetary protection in view of the prolonged deprivation occasioned during the litigation.

Conclusion: The challenge on natural justice grounds failed, while limited relief by way of interest from the FDR was granted to the vendor.

Final Conclusion: The compulsory purchase was sustained, the buyers' challenge failed, and the vendor received only limited ancillary monetary relief without upsetting the acquisition order.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order, the Court examines only whether the Authority ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, violated natural justice, or reached a conclusion no reasonable authority could reach; if the essential basis of valuation is disclosed and the assessment is supported by comparable material, the order will not be interfered with merely because a different valuation is possible.

---