Fair market valuation and notice sequence under Chapter XXA shaped the validity of acquisition proceedings and procedural compliance.

Chapter XXA acquisition proceedings turned on whether the competent authority could determine fair market value and whether notice procedure under section 269D was mandatory. The text states that valuation assistance was incidental to the statutory scheme for testing understatement of consideration, so fair market value could be determined for acquisition purposes. It also records conflicting views on notice sequence: one view treated prior publication in the Official Gazette as a mandatory jurisdictional step, while another treated service before publication as a curable irregularity because the transferees received notice and participated without showing prejudice. The principal order sustained the acquisition, with a separate opinion dissenting on the notice requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the competent authority could determine the fair market value of the property for acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA. (ii) Whether service of individual notices before publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under section 269D invalidated the acquisition proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the competent authority could determine the fair market value of the property for acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA.

Analysis: The statutory machinery for acquisition required the competent authority to satisfy itself about understatement of consideration by comparing the apparent consideration with the fair market value. The power to obtain valuation assistance was treated as incidental to the acquisition scheme and not as a prohibited exercise. The valuation evidence on record was accepted as showing a value materially above the sale consideration.

Conclusion: The competent authority could determine the fair market value for the purpose of the acquisition proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether service of individual notices before publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under section 269D invalidated the acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: One view treated the sequence prescribed by section 269D as a mandatory integrated procedure and held that publication in the Official Gazette must precede service of individual notices, so that deviation from that sequence went to jurisdiction and could not be cured by acquiescence or waiver. The other view treated the irregularity as non-fatal because the notices reached the transferees, they participated in the proceedings, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The issue was held to invalidate the proceedings by the dissenting view, while the main order treated the defect as only an irregularity and sustained the acquisition.

Final Conclusion: The judgment contains conflicting views on the legality of the acquisition proceedings, with the principal order sustaining the acquisition and the separate opinion taking the opposite view on the notice requirement.

---