Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase upheld, but deferred consideration must be discounted only from tender of payment.

Transferees could maintain the writ challenge to a Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase order, and defects in the show-cause notice or receipt of refunded part-consideration did not defeat maintainability where no prejudice was shown. The authority's finding of undervaluation was sustained because fair market value was assessed with reference to comparable sales, proximity, locality, and relevant adjustments, and the writ court found no perversity. On deferred consideration, the discounted value had to be computed only from the date payment was tendered, not from the date of the agreement. The purchase order was maintained, with recomputation of consideration on the correct discounting basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transferees could maintain the writ petition and challenge the pre-emptive purchase order, including objections based on the show-cause notice and alleged acquiescence; (ii) whether the appropriate authority had correctly determined that the property was undervalued and that the fair market value justified purchase under Chapter XX-C; and (iii) whether the discounted value of deferred consideration had to be computed from the date of the agreement or only from the date of tender of payment.

Issue (i): whether the transferees could maintain the writ petition and challenge the pre-emptive purchase order, including objections based on the show-cause notice and alleged acquiescence.

Analysis: The defects in the show-cause notice were held not to vitiate the final order, because the statutory scheme required a prompt inquiry on the basis of material gathered within a short time and no prejudice was shown. The transferees were also held entitled to challenge the purchase order, since their receipt of refunded part-consideration did not extinguish their right to question the legality of the order. The objection based on abrogation of the purchase order was also rejected, as statutory consequences under Chapter XX-C could not be defeated by concessions between the parties.

Conclusion: The challenge by the transferees was maintainable and their preliminary objections failed.

Issue (ii): whether the appropriate authority had correctly determined that the property was undervalued and that the fair market value justified purchase under Chapter XX-C.

Analysis: The authority was required to assess fair market value on the basis of genuine and comparable instances, with proper regard to proximity in time and location, and to make reasonable adjustments for plus and minus factors. The impugned order was upheld because the authority did not mechanically rely on ready-flat instances as direct comparables, but used them only to indicate the price trend and development potential in the locality. The nearer comparable instance relied upon by the transferees was considered, but was distinguished on location, frontage, road access, and other relevant factors. The writ court, not sitting in appeal, found no perversity or reliance on irrelevant material.

Conclusion: The finding of undervaluation and the resultant purchase order were sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the discounted value of deferred consideration had to be computed from the date of the agreement or only from the date of tender of payment.

Analysis: The definition of apparent consideration was construed to mean that only the consideration payable after the agreement date is to be discounted, and the period of discount cannot begin from the date of the agreement or from the date of the purchase order. The statutory scheme, which deprives the transferor of title and possession before actual payment, did not justify discounting for a period during which the transferor had no control over the authority's time taken to decide the matter. The court declined to follow the contrary view to the extent it treated the agreement date as the starting point for discounting.

Conclusion: The discounted value had to be recalculated from the date of tender of payment, not from the date of the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The pre-emptive purchase order was maintained, but the consideration payable to the transferors required recomputation on the correct basis of discounting, and the transferees' writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Chapter XX-C, fair market value may be determined with reference to comparable sales and relevant market factors, but the discounted value of deferred consideration must be computed only for the period after payment is tendered and not from the date of the agreement for transfer.

---