TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Survey No. 252/2, Mouza Lendra, i.e., 10,000 sq. ft./929.03 sq. metre together with the dwelling units in dilapidated condition in Shradhhanand Peth, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil and district Nagpur. The said property came to be transferred in their favour by the will executed by one Dr. Balwant Govind Kane with full discretion to lease out the said property on rent or to sell it. 2. On January 3, 1991, respondent No. 2-society published advertisement in newspapers inviting bids for purchase of the suit property. On January 16, 1991 in pursuance of the above advertisement, nine bids were received. The bid of the petitioner for purchase of the suit property for Rs. 16,00,000 was the highest. On February 19, 1991, by a resolution responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were asked to remain present on March 22, 1994, for hearing. On March 21, 1994, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed their reply to the show-cause notice. On March 25, 1994, the Appropriate Authority passed order under section 269UD(1) and section 268UE(2) for pre-emptive purchase of the suit property. On April 10, 1994, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the orders dated March 25, 1994. On April 11, 1994, this court heard the matter and was pleased to issue rule and grant stay of possession of the property and the parties were ordered to maintain status quo. 3. First of all, as pointed out, the show-cause notice dated February 25, 1994, is vague. There is no material including any sale instance referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....going through the impugned order/action, we have noted that the sale instance as relied on, of which no copy was served at the relevant time and/or at any time to the petitioner. The said sale instance is of the year 1994. As noted, pursuant to the offer given by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was qualified and the respondent accordingly resolved to sell the property, based upon the valuation, which they had prepared, accepted the earnest money in the year 1991 itself. After due sanction, as required under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the agreement in question was executed in the year 1993. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 thereafter submitted Form 37-I to respondent No. 1. The sale instance of the year 1994, therefore, relied upon i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the petitioner's counsel in all respects. 5. Importantly, respondent No. 2 after complying with all the formalities being a trust and property being a trust property, as required under the BPT Act, based upon the proper valuation of the property considered and decided and sanction by the competent authority just cannot be overlooked without any contra material to justify to challenge the said valuation, in a case like this, where the sanction is granted by the authority under the BPT Act. In Om Shri Jigar Association v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 608 (Guj) a Bench of the Gujarat High Court considering similar provisions of the Income-tax Act, as well as, the BPT Act has observed as under (page 613) : "In the light of the aforesai....