Court upholds preemptive purchase order under Chapter XXC, dismisses appeal on various grounds.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the preemptive purchase order and confirming the applicability of Chapter XXC. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding jurisdiction, consideration amount, property area discrepancy, and the principle of res judicata, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and applicability of Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the preemptive purchase order and the consideration amount.
3. Alleged misdescription of the property area in sale notices.
4. Principle of res judicata and estoppel.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Chapter XXC:
The appellant argued that the agreement for sale was dated 22nd October, 1984, whereas Chapter XXC was incorporated on 1st October, 1986, with no retrospective effect. The appellant contended that any action taken under this chapter was null and void. The court noted that the appellant had voluntarily filed Form 37-I under Chapter XXC, and the appropriate authority processed it as per the law. The court upheld the previous judgment which confirmed the applicability of Chapter XXC, stating that the agreement fell within its purview as the parties filed Form 37-I after the chapter came into effect.

2. Validity of the Preemptive Purchase Order and Consideration Amount:
The appellant challenged the order of preemptive purchase, arguing that the consideration amount was not paid within the stipulated time, thus invalidating the sale. The court found that Rs.15 lakhs out of Rs.18 lakhs was accepted by the appellant, and the balance Rs.3 lakhs was tendered within the time but refused by the appellant. The court held that the consideration amount was duly tendered as required under Section 269UG of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus, the sale was valid.

3. Alleged Misdescription of the Property Area:
The appellant claimed that the property area was misdescribed in the sale notices, affecting the compensation amount. The court noted that the appellant had initially declared the area as approximately 6000 sq.ft. in Form 37-I. The court held that the appellant was estopped from raising the issue of area discrepancy at a later stage, as it was their responsibility to rectify any errors at the earliest opportunity.

4. Principle of Res Judicata and Estoppel:
The court addressed the principle of res judicata, noting that the issues raised by the appellant had already been decided in a previous writ petition (W.P. No.1825 of 2001) and were not appealed against, thus becoming final. The court emphasized that even a wrong decision by a competent court is binding if it reaches finality. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the previous judgment was per incuriam, stating that such a plea cannot be entertained in collateral proceedings. The court concluded that the current appeal was barred by res judicata and estoppel.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the preemptive purchase order and confirming the applicability of Chapter XXC. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding jurisdiction, consideration amount, property area discrepancy, and the principle of res judicata, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the appellant.

---