Prima facie belief and reason to believe must be clear before acquisition; ambiguous notice and flawed valuation invalidate initiation.

Section 269C requires the Competent Authority to form a clear prima facie belief on the statutory object and supporting material before initiating acquisition proceedings. A notice that retains the ambiguous expression "and/or" shows no concluded mind as to which statutory object is relied on, and is therefore invalid. The notice is also unsustainable where the valuation basis is materially defective: absent proper comparable sales and with assumptions inconsistent with the actual construction, the material cannot support the requisite reason to believe. The initiation therefore failed at the threshold and the impugned notice could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice initiating acquisition proceedings was vitiated because the Competent Authority used the expression "and/or" and had not made up its mind as to the statutory object under section 269C. (ii) Whether the Competent Authority had, on the material available when the notice was issued, the requisite reason to believe that the conditions precedent under section 269C were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the notice initiating acquisition proceedings was vitiated because the Competent Authority used the expression "and/or" and had not made up its mind as to the statutory object under section 269C.

Analysis: Section 269C requires the Competent Authority to form a prima facie belief that the transfer was for one or both of the statutory objects specified in clauses (a) and (b). The notice, by retaining the ambiguous expression "and/or", showed that the authority had not reached a clear conclusion as to which statutory object was present. The statutory language permits belief in either object or both, but not an indeterminate and uncertain state of mind.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid on this ground and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Competent Authority had, on the material available when the notice was issued, the requisite reason to believe that the conditions precedent under section 269C were satisfied.

Analysis: The statutory preconditions under section 269C are rooted in valuation and require a rational nexus between the material and the belief formed. The material relied on was found to be unsatisfactory: no proper comparable sales were set out, the land value was assessed by reference to an inadequate basis, and the structure was valued on assumptions inconsistent with the actual building as constructed. The valuation was therefore seriously flawed, and the threshold requirements of section 269C could not be said to have been met when the notice was issued.

Conclusion: The Competent Authority ? did not have the requisite reason to believe, and the notice was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition initiation failed at the threshold because the statutory conditions for invoking Chapter XXA were not established on the material before the Competent Authority, so the impugned notice and consequential letter could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: For initiation of acquisition proceedings under section 269C, the Competent Authority must form a clear and rational prima facie belief on the statutory preconditions; an ambiguous notice or a valuation founded on materially defective assumptions cannot satisfy that jurisdictional requirement.

---