Compulsory property purchase under s. 269UD notice and hearing process struck down for inadequate time and withheld sale documents

The dominant issue was whether the Appropriate Authority's notice and hearing procedure for compulsory purchase/transfer of property complied with principles of natural justice under s. 269UD. The SC held that granting an effectively three-day response time (five days including a weekend), despite the Authority having ample statutory time after filing of Form 37-I, was an inadequate opportunity to meet the case. The SC further held that failure to furnish any documents relating to the sale instance relied upon in the notice denied a fair chance to rebut the material. These defects amounted to a gross breach of natural justice; given the statutory time-limit and the Authority's delay, remand was refused and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Adequacy of notice period and opportunity to respond.
2. Allegation of low apparent consideration without providing necessary documents.
3. Breach of principles of natural justice.
4. Setting aside the order of compulsory purchase.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the appellant, a transferee of immovable property, who received a notice from the Appropriate Authority regarding a hearing for a transfer of property. The appellant contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to respond adequately to the case made out in the notice. The High Court upheld the order of compulsory purchase, which is now challenged.

2. The notice alleged that the apparent consideration of the transaction was low based on a sale instance, but the Appropriate Authority failed to provide the appellant with any documents related to the sale instance. This lack of information hindered the appellant's ability to respond effectively to the allegation, leading to a breach of natural justice principles.

3. The Supreme Court found that the notice period provided by the Appropriate Authority was inadequate, giving the appellant only three days to respond effectively. The Court emphasized that the two days over the weekend should also be considered, making the notice period even shorter. Additionally, the failure to provide essential documents related to the sale instance further compounded the breach of natural justice principles.

4. Due to the statutory limit within which the Appropriate Authority was required to act and the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the order of compulsory purchase. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the Appropriate Authority dated May 31, 1993, and directed the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant.

---