Fair market value proof in acquisition proceedings must be cogent; inadequate evidence defeats acquisition and remand is unwarranted.

In proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the onus of proving fair market value and the basis for acquisition rested on the competent authority, and acquisition could not be sustained on assumptions or inadequate evidence. The Karnataka High Court noted that the Tribunal had co-extensive power to reappreciate the material, including comparable transactions and the departmental valuation report, and found the evidence insufficient to support understatement of apparent consideration by more than 25%. The Court saw no legal error in that appraisal and held that remand was unnecessary where cogent proof had not been marshalled, so the cancellation of the acquisition order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in cancelling the acquisition order on the ground that the evidence did not support the finding that the apparent consideration was understated by more than 25% and whether the matter should have been remitted for fresh evidence.

Analysis: The appeal under section 269G lay on questions of fact and law, and the Tribunal had co-extensive jurisdiction with the competent authority to reappreciate the evidence and reach its own conclusion. In proceedings under Chapter XX-A, the onus of establishing fair market value and the basis for acquisition lay on the competent authority, and acquisition could not rest on assumptions or inadequate evidence. The Tribunal examined the material relied upon by the authority, including comparable transactions and the departmental valuation report, and found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the order. The Court found no error of law in that appreciation of evidence and held that remand would be inappropriate where the authority had already failed to marshal cogent proof.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's cancellation of the acquisition order was upheld, and the prayer for remand was rejected.

---