Pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C upheld where consideration was tendered in substance and no revestment followed.

Property already vested in the Central Government under Chapter XX-C remained unaffected by the earlier setting aside of the High Court judgment, because that order did not require the matter to start de novo. The authority could issue a fresh notice, hear objections on valuation and deduction, and decide the matter in accordance with the settled principles. The Court found substantial undervaluation with an intention to evade tax and held that the consideration had been tendered in substance, as the transferor accepted payment and delivered possession. The disputed deduction therefore did not invalidate vesting or trigger revestment of the property in the transferor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fresh order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was valid and whether the property revested in the transferor on the ground that the Central Government had failed to tender the full consideration.

Analysis: The property had already vested in the Central Government pursuant to the order of compulsory purchase, and the earlier setting aside of the High Court judgment did not direct the proceedings to commence de novo. The appropriate authority, therefore, could proceed by issuing a fresh notice of hearing and disposing of the matter on the principles settled in the earlier Constitution Bench decision. The authority gave notice, considered objections to valuation and deduction, and recorded a reasoned finding of substantial undervaluation with an intention to evade tax. On the question of revestment, the Court held that the amount payable had been tendered in substance, the transferor had accepted the payment and delivered possession, and the alleged deduction dispute did not invalidate the vesting or attract the consequence of abrogation under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The fresh pre-emptive purchase order was upheld and the contention that the property revested in the transferor was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory purchase under Chapter XX-C remained effective, and no interference was called for with the authority's determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where immovable property has already vested in the Central Government under Chapter XX-C and the transferor has accepted the consideration and handed over possession, the subsequent setting aside of an earlier judicial order does not compel de novo proceedings, nor does a disputed deduction in working out the payable amount, absent failure to tender the consideration in substance, result in revestment of the property.

---