Natural justice and valuation scrutiny upheld where hearing was granted and no extraneous material influenced the pre-emptive purchase order.

A pre-emptive purchase order was upheld because the petitioner was given notice, queries were addressed, a hearing was held, and no procedural prejudice or denial of natural justice was shown. The authority also acted on relevant valuation material and on the surrounding facts concerning the alleged tenancy and encumbrance; it was open to examine whether the claimed tenancy was genuine or created to defeat the statutory scheme. No extraneous material was established, and the authority's valuation approach was found to be plausible on the record. The writ challenge failed, and the interim orders were vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the authorities took extraneous materials into consideration while passing the impugned order.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice

Analysis: The show-cause notice was followed by queries, a hearing was granted, the petitioner appeared, and the petitioner did not seek adjournment or raise any objection at the hearing regarding insufficiency of time. The relevant valuation material had been supplied, and the circumstances were unlike cases where adjournment was refused or effective opportunity was denied. On those facts, no procedural prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative and against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities took extraneous materials into consideration while passing the impugned order

Analysis: The impugned order addressed the petitioner's objections on tenancy, comparative valuation, mortgage, and surrounding litigation. The authority considered the valuation report, the existence and quality of the alleged tenancy, and the surrounding factual matrix. It was open to the authority to examine whether the alleged encumbrance was real or created to defeat the statutory scheme, and the valuation could be assessed on that basis. The view taken was found to be plausible on the materials before the authority, and no extraneous consideration was established.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative and against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase order failed, and the writ petition was dismissed with the interim orders vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory authority gives a hearing, considers the relevant material, and forms a plausible view on the genuineness or effect of an alleged encumbrance, a writ court will not interfere merely because a different valuation approach is possible.

---