Chapter XXA acquisition fails where valuation ignores tenancy and relies on non-comparable sales, while limitation runs from actual service.

Limitation for the transferee's appeal ran from actual service of the order on the transferee; on the facts, service was in the second week of November 1986, so the appeal filed on 24 November 1986 was within time and the preliminary objection failed. In the Chapter XXA acquisition challenge, the valuation basis was flawed because the property was wrongly treated as wholly vacant, although part was tenanted, and the comparable sales were not sufficiently comparable in time, locality or size. Since tenancy materially affected market value and the apparent consideration was accepted as the real consideration, the statutory basis for acquisition was not made out and the acquisition order was vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transferee's appeal was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the acquisition order under Chapter XXA could be sustained on the footing that the apparent consideration was understated and the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by the required margin.

Issue (i): Whether the transferee's appeal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The period of limitation was held to run from service of the order on the transferee. On the affidavits and surrounding facts, service on the transferee was found to have taken place only in the second week of November 1986, not in early October 1986. The appeal filed on 24 November 1986 was therefore within time, and the preliminary objection failed.

Conclusion: The transferee's appeal was not barred by limitation; the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition order under Chapter XXA could be sustained on the footing that the apparent consideration was understated and the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by the required margin.

Analysis: The valuation order was found to rest on factual inaccuracies, including an incorrect assumption that the property was wholly vacant when part of it was under tenancy. The tenancy materially affected market value and had not been allowed for. The comparable sales relied upon were not sufficiently comparable in point of time, locality, and size. On the evidence, the apparent consideration was accepted as the real consideration and the statutory basis for acquisition was not made out.

Conclusion: The acquisition order was unsustainable and was vacated.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the acquisition under Chapter XXA was set aside after rejection of the limitation objection.

Ratio Decidendi: For acquisition of immovable property on the footing of understatement of consideration, the authority must base its conclusion on reliable and truly comparable valuation material and must correctly account for material facts affecting market value, including tenancy.

---