Valuation of tenanted property on rental basis must rest on owner's realizable rent, not sub-tenant receipts, absent perversity.

Publication under Chapter XXA was discussed as complete either on printing in the Official Gazette or only when the Gazette became publicly available, with the Court expressing inclination toward the former view but leaving the limitation question undecided. On valuation, the Court held that for a tenanted property valued on a rental basis, the proper figure is the rent actually available to the owner from tenants; rent received by sub-tenants need not be included. The Tribunal's valuation was based on relevant material, was not shown to be perverse, and could not be disturbed in an appeal confined to questions of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acquisition proceedings initiated under Chapter XXA were barred by limitation on the ground that the notice under section 269D(1) was published only when the Gazette became available to the public; and (ii) whether the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee's valuation and rejecting the Department's valuation of the property.

Issue (i): whether acquisition proceedings initiated under Chapter XXA were barred by limitation on the ground that the notice under section 269D(1) was published only when the Gazette became available to the public.

Analysis: The competing views of the High Courts were considered. One view treated publication as complete on printing in the Official Gazette, while the other treated it as complete only when the Gazette was made available to the public. The Court indicated its inclination towards the former view, following the principle that publication in the Official Gazette is the statutory mode of publication, but did not finally decide the question because the appeal was being disposed of on merits.

Conclusion: No final determination was made on limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee's valuation and rejecting the Department's valuation of the property.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the factual circumstances affecting the property, including its tenanted character, subletting, unauthorised occupation, pending litigation and the relevant rental data. The Court held that in valuing a tenanted property on rental basis, the rent actually available to the owner from tenants was the relevant basis and that rent realised by tenants from sub-tenants need not be taken into account. The Tribunal's estimate was not shown to be perverse or based on irrelevant material, and in an appeal confined to questions of law the Court would not reappraise the evidence and substitute its own valuation.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's valuation finding was upheld and the Department's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the Tribunal's order was affirmed, and the acquisition proceedings did not survive judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal confined to questions of law, a valuation finding based on relevant material and not shown to be perverse will not be disturbed, and in valuing a tenanted property on rental basis the owner's realizable rent is the proper basis.

---