Fair market valuation dispute upheld where comparable sale evidence was not shown to be unreasonable or perverse.

An acquisition order based on a finding that fair market value exceeded the declared consideration by 28.5% was upheld because the valuation exercise, supported by comparable sale instances, was not shown to be unreasonable or perverse. The Supreme Court found no compelling ground to interfere with the High Court's conclusion and declined to disturb the authority's decision on the facts presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Appropriate Authority acquiring the property on the basis that the fair market value exceeded the declared consideration by 28.5 per cent called for interference.

Analysis: The valuation exercise based on comparable sale instances was not shown to be unreasonable or perverse. The Court accepted that the difference between the apparent consideration and the assessed fair market value did not, on the facts, justify upsetting the decision reached by the authority below, and found no compelling ground to interfere with the conclusion of the High Court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's order failed and the acquisition order was not interfered with.

---