Appellant lacks standing to challenge property purchase order due to acquiescence principle

The court held that the appellant, as a mere agreement-holder, did not have locus standi to challenge the order of the appropriate authority regarding the purchase of the property. Additionally, the court applied the principle of acquiescence, ruling that by accepting the refund as per the agreement's terms, the appellant had acquiesced to the cancellation of the sale and could not challenge the order. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the application of the principle of acquiescence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Transferee
2. Application of the Principle of Acquiescence

Summary:

1. Locus Standi of the Transferee:

The appellant entered into an agreement with the third respondent to purchase Mohan Buildings, and both parties filed a statement in Form No. 37-1 with the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority passed an order u/s 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to purchase the property by the Central Government. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that as a transferee, he had a right to question the order. The court examined whether a mere agreement-holder could be considered a "person interested" u/s 269UA(e) of the Act. The court referred to various legal precedents and concluded that a contract for sale does not create any interest in the immovable property. Therefore, the appellant, being a transferee under an agreement, did not have locus standi to challenge the order of the appropriate authority.

2. Application of the Principle of Acquiescence:

The agreement between the appellant and the third respondent included a clause that if the property was acquired under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, the agreement would be canceled, and the advance paid would be refunded. The appellant received Rs. 50 lakhs paid by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax without any demur. The court held that by accepting the refund, the appellant acquiesced to the terms of the agreement, and therefore, could not challenge the order. The principle of acquiescence was applied, as the appellant had accepted the refund as per the agreement's terms, indicating his acceptance of the cancellation of the sale. The court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the application of the principle of acquiescence.

---