2012 (8) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the apparent consideration of the property in question was under stated by 27%, as compared to the property at E-23 East of Kailash, New Delhi, and by 33%, when compared to the property at E-124, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Consequently, the order for pre-emptive purchase of the property in question under section 269UD (1) of the said Act was passed. 3. The property in question is E-41, East of Kailash, New Delhi. It is a residential property and measures 450 Sq. Yrds. or 376.25 Sq. Mtr. There is a built up structure of approximately 2000 Sq.Ft. on that property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the only reason for the respondent to arrive at the conclusion that the property in question had been sold at an un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is taken into account, the difference between the apparent consideration and the said sale instance value would be less than 15% and therefore the pre-emptive purchase could not have been ordered. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue also on the aforesaid aspects. However, we feel that the last point urged by the petitioner clinches the issue in their favour. It is an admitted position that the property in question had been agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.. 21 Lakh plus the amount of unearned increase to be charged by the DDA for the said transfer. The sale agreement was entered into on 21.05.1987. There is no dispute that after the unearned increase amount is taken into account, as indicated by the DDA, the va....