Chapter XX-C pre-emptive purchase turns on undervaluation and contract terms allocating liabilities.

For pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C, the decisive inquiry is whether the apparent consideration is substantially below market value. The document explains that a comparable apartment in the same complex supported the authority's view that the stated price was undervalued, and the form-based disclosure did not displace that market comparison. It further states that contractual allocation of liabilities governs unless the agreement clearly shifts an outstanding amount to the purchaser. Because the sale agreement did not make the unpaid sum due to the original allotter a purchaser's liability, that amount could not be used to negate undervaluation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was justified on the ground that the apparent consideration disclosed for the property was substantially below its market value; (ii) whether the unpaid amount due to the original allotter was liable to be treated as part of the purchaser's liability so as to displace the finding of undervaluation.

Issue (i): whether the pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was justified on the ground that the apparent consideration disclosed for the property was substantially below its market value.

Analysis: The agreement to sell and the comparable instance relied upon by the appropriate authority showed that a similarly situated apartment in the same complex was proposed to be sold for a considerably higher amount. On that basis, the authority formed the view that the petitioners were transferring the property at a much lower price than its market value. The challenge based on the figure mentioned in Form 37-I did not dislodge this conclusion, since the operative comparison was with the market value reflected by the comparable transaction.

Conclusion: The finding of undervaluation was and the order of pre-emptive purchase was sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the unpaid amount due to the original allotter was liable to be treated as part of the purchaser's liability so as to displace the finding of undervaluation.

Analysis: The agreement stipulated the total sale price, recorded receipt of an advance, and required the balance price to be paid at registration. It also cast the burden of other expenses and outstanding dues on the petitioners up to the date of registration. The document did not state that the remaining amount payable to the original allotter was to be borne by the purchaser. The disclosure in Form 37-I could not override the terms of the agreement, and the unpaid amount was not shown to be a purchaser's liability.

Conclusion: The unpaid amount could not be treated as a liability of the purchaser, and the petitioners' objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase action failed, and the property purchase by the Central Government stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C, the decisive test is whether the apparent consideration disclosed is substantially below the market value, and the contractual terms of sale control the allocation of liabilities unless the agreement clearly shifts a liability to the purchaser.

---