Fresh Form No. 37-I can restart limitation, and compulsory purchase stands where valuation and transfer objections fail.

A fresh and valid Form No. 37-I can trigger a new limitation period for an order under section 269UD(1) when the earlier refusal was not challenged and the later statement was duly filed and acted upon. A compulsory purchase order is not invalid merely because of an alleged mismatch in property description where the record shows prior demarcation and the ordered property corresponds to the owner's share. No prior transfer by part performance is established without possession of the relevant property under section 53A, and understated consideration may be sustained on comparable sales and inspection evidence. The purchase order was upheld on these grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second Form No. 37-I filed after the first refusal order gave rise to a fresh period of limitation for an order under section 269UD(1); (ii) whether the compulsory purchase order was invalid because the property described in the order was allegedly not the same as the property in the agreement and statement; (iii) whether the appellants had effected a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) before Chapter XX-C came into force; (iv) whether non-tender or non-deposit of consideration within the statutory time rendered the purchase ineffective; and (v) whether the valuation finding of understatement of consideration was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the second Form No. 37-I filed after the first refusal order gave rise to a fresh period of limitation for an order under section 269UD(1).

Analysis: The initial refusal order was not challenged for years, and the parties themselves filed a fresh statement after obtaining the Reserve Bank of India permission. The statutory period under the proviso to section 269UD(1) runs from receipt of the statement under Form No. 37-I. Once a fresh and valid statement was filed and acted upon, the Appropriate Authority was entitled to proceed on that statement and pass an order within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the compulsory purchase order was invalid because the property described in the order was allegedly not the same as the property in the agreement and statement.

Analysis: The materials on record, including the recitals in the sale deeds, the affidavit of the estate representative, and the Authority's inspection, showed an oral partition and demarcation of shares before the purchase order. The property purchased under the order corresponded to the demarcated share of the owner in question, and the description in the order did not invalidate it.

Conclusion: The challenge based on mismatch of description failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants had effected a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) before Chapter XX-C came into force.

Analysis: Transfer by part performance required possession of the relevant property in terms of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The record showed possession of only the demarcated portions purchased under later sale deeds, not possession of the share covered by the impugned purchase order. The contention was also treated as not pressed before the High Court and could not be reopened.

Conclusion: No prior transfer was established, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether non-tender or non-deposit of consideration within the statutory time rendered the purchase ineffective.

Analysis: The objection was raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and was therefore not entertained. In any event, the record showed timely deposit with the Appropriate Authority and receipt by the transferor without protest.

Conclusion: The contention failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the valuation finding of understatement of consideration was sustainable.

Analysis: The Appropriate Authority and the High Court relied on comparable sales, location, frontage, accessibility, and physical inspection. The material supported the conclusion that the declared consideration was understated, and no basis existed to disturb the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The valuation finding was sustained and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The compulsory purchase order was upheld on all material grounds, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh valid statement under Form No. 37-I can trigger a fresh limitation period under section 269UD(1), and where concurrent factual findings establish demarcated ownership, no prior transfer in part performance, timely deposit of consideration, and understatement of value, the compulsory purchase order will not be interfered with.

---