Pre-emptive purchase requires fair market valuation and disclosure of relied-upon material; denial of hearing vitiates the order.

Pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C could be exercised only after determining the property's fair market value and forming a valid basis for finding undervaluation. Here, no fair market value was fixed, the valuation report relied upon was not furnished despite request, and the petitioners' comparable sale instances and valuation material were not properly considered. Reliance on an earlier order already set aside also showed a predetermined approach. These defects amounted to denial of a fair hearing and violation of natural justice, rendering the order under section 269UD(1) unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD(1) was sustainable when the fair market value of the property had not been determined and the valuation material relied upon was not furnished, resulting in denial of fair hearing.

Analysis: The pre-emptive purchase power under Chapter XX-C could be exercised only after determining the fair market value of the property and forming a valid basis for concluding undervaluation. On the facts, no fair market value had been fixed at all. The valuation report relied upon by the Authority was not supplied to the petitioners despite request, and the petitioners' comparable sale instances and valuation material were not properly considered. The record also indicated reliance on an earlier order already set aside, showing a predetermined approach. These defects amounted to violation of natural justice and vitiated the impugned order.

Conclusion: The order under section 269UD(1) was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the petitioners.

---