Pre-emptive purchase orders require recorded grounds and relevant market material; absence of comparable evidence makes the order invalid.

An order for pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C had to be based on relevant material and on recorded grounds showing that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15 per cent. The statutory scheme required a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a speaking order stating the basis for the conclusion. Here, the only comparable sale relied on involved a composite property with basement, ground and first floors, while the subject property was only a first-floor unit; the order itself acknowledged that floor-wise rates differ materially. Because no material was recorded showing the prevailing market rate for a first-floor commercial property in the locality, the order did not satisfy the statutory requirements and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was liable to be quashed for want of relevant material and recorded grounds supporting the conclusion that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 15 per cent.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 269UD(1A) required a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the order was made, and section 269UD(1B) required the order to specify the grounds on which it was made. The decision had to rest on objective consideration of relevant material and not merely on rejection of objections. The only relied-upon comparable transaction involved a composite property consisting of basement, ground floor and first floor, while the property in question was only a first-floor unit. The order itself accepted that floor-wise rates differ materially and that lower and higher floors cannot be treated as comparable on the same footing. Even so, the order did not disclose any material showing the prevailing market rate for a first-floor commercial property in the relevant vicinity, nor did it record grounds establishing understatement by the requisite margin.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was quashed because it did not rest on relevant material or recorded grounds satisfying the statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: An order for pre-emptive purchase must be supported by relevant material and explicit recorded grounds demonstrating understatement of apparent consideration; without such objective basis, the order is invalid.

---