TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the pre-emptive purchase order was passed. (ii) Whether the appropriate authority erred in law in forming the opinion of understatement of consideration and in relying on the material and sale instances before it.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the pre-emptive purchase order was passed.
Analysis: Notice was issued on 10 February 1995 and the petitioners received it on 16 February 1995. Replies were filed on 21 and 22 February 1995 and were considered by the authority. In view of the urgency inherent in proceedings under the pre-emptive purchase provisions, the time available was not held to be inadequate.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not denied reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Issue (ii): Whether the appropriate authority erred in law in forming the opinion of understatement of consideration and in relying on the material and sale instances before it.
Analysis: The property was agricultural land and conversion to non-agricultural use would require permission and attendant conversion charges. The authority failed to assess these relevant factors on the basis of material on record. It also treated Urban Land Ceiling permission as a mere formality without adequate basis. Further, it relied on a small sale instance plot while ignoring the material difference in size, development status, and town planning position, and it did not properly consider the petitioners' own comparable sale instances. Relevant and germane factors were omitted, while extraneous considerations entered the decision-making process, rendering the opinion unsustainable.
Conclusion: The impugned pre-emptive purchase order was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on merits because the impugned order was founded on an erroneous assessment of relevant valuation factors and comparable material, warranting issuance of the clearance certificate and consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for pre-emptive purchase, the authority must form its opinion on understatement of consideration by considering all relevant valuation factors and comparable instances on the basis of material on record, and an order based on ignored material or irrelevant assumptions is liable to be struck down as an error of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
