Court upholds purchase order, denies revesting claim, dismisses writ application, ruling against petitioner on all issues raised.

The court upheld the order of purchase dated 27th September 1995, finding it compliant with legal requirements and principles of natural justice. The petitioner's claim for revesting the property due to alleged non-payment of full sale consideration was rejected as the court determined that the apparent consideration had been paid to the transferor. Additionally, the court clarified that the transferee was not entitled to claim revesting under Section 269UH. The writ application was dismissed, with the court ruling against the petitioner on all issues raised.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order of purchase dated 27th September 1995.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Entitlement to revesting of the property due to alleged non-payment of full sale consideration.
4. Interpretation of "person or persons entitled thereto" under Section 269UG of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order of Purchase Dated 27th September 1995:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27th September 1995 passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order was beyond the prescribed period as the ad-interim stay was vacated on 3rd December 1990. However, the court found that the initial order of purchase was passed on 25th January 1990, which was set aside on 13th July 1995 due to non-compliance with natural justice principles as per the Supreme Court's judgment in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India. The fresh order of purchase was passed within two months of the end of the month in which the previous order was set aside, thus complying with the legal timeframe.

2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:
The initial order of purchase dated 25th January 1990 was set aside on 13th July 1995 because it was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties, violating the principles of natural justice. This was in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India, which mandated compliance with natural justice principles. The fresh order of purchase dated 27th September 1995 was issued after following due process, thereby addressing the previous violation.

3. Entitlement to Revesting of the Property Due to Alleged Non-Payment of Full Sale Consideration:
The petitioner claimed revesting of the property, arguing that the full sale consideration was not paid, specifically citing an extra cost of Rs. 30,000 for Kota Stone and security at Rs. 3 per sq. ft. The court found that the Revenue had paid Rs. 25.62 lakhs to the transferor, which was the apparent consideration as per Form 37-I and the agreement. The court noted that any additional cost for Kota Stone was not part of the apparent consideration and had not been disputed by the transferor after the order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner's argument for revesting based on non-payment of the extra cost was rejected.

4. Interpretation of "Person or Persons Entitled Thereto" under Section 269UG of the Income-Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the transferee (petitioner) was entitled to the consideration amount paid by the Revenue under Section 269UG. The court concluded that the term "person or persons entitled thereto" could include the transferee if the transferee proved the payments made in pursuance of the sale agreement. However, since the petitioner did not raise this issue before the appropriate authority, the court found no basis to claim that the payment made by the Revenue to the transferor was illegal. The court also clarified that revesting under Section 269UH could only be claimed by the transferor, not the transferee.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The order of purchase dated 27th September 1995 was upheld as it complied with the legal timeframe and principles of natural justice. The petitioner's claim for revesting based on alleged non-payment of full consideration was rejected, and the interpretation of "person or persons entitled thereto" did not support the petitioner's case for revesting.

---