TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property bearing Survey No.54, Hissa No.3 and 4-B admeasuring Section 36 Ares situated at Wanowrie, Pune (for short "the said Act"). According to the case of the petitioner, Mr.Suhas Deshpande and others ("the Original owners") entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 14th December, hcs 1990 by which the right to develop said property was conferred on the petitioner. The consideration agreed was Rs. 15,68,000/- out of which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/-. A Power of Attorney was executed by the original owners on 14th December, 1990 in favour of a partner of the petitioner authorising him to do deeds and things in respect of the property including a power to sell, transfer and assign the right acquired by the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... took over possession of the said property. 4. A suit for declaration was filed by the said Suhas Deshpande in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pune for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property. In view of the dispute as to title, in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 269UD, the amount of consideration fixed under the order dated 24th February, 1994 was deposited by the Central Government with the Appropriate Authority. The suit filed by the said Suhas Deshpande came to be dismissed on 19th September, 2005. We may note here that the said Suhas Deshpande has filed an application for intervention in this Writ Petition. There is another Civil Application No.694 of 2010 filed by a person claiming to be a transf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 269 UD. He submitted that as a result of the failure to pay the amount to the petitioner, the order under sub-section (1) of Section 269 UD stands abrogated and therefore, the subject property vests in the petitioner. He invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jayshree Rajendra Shroff and Others vs. Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad JT 2002 (10) SCC 259. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the declaration as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 269 UG is issued nor consideration is paid to the petitioner. He submitted that in the meanwhile, there has been an encroachment on the property and that is reason why prayer clause (c) is incorporated inasmuch as it was the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....between the original owners and the petitioner. The last of the notices issued by the Advocate for the original owners is of 12th January, 1992. By the said notice, the petitioner was informed that the agreement executed by the original owners and the power of attorney stands terminated and cancelled. 8. It appears that by an agreement dated 8th March, 2000 executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr.Dattatraya Mahendra Mahadik, the petitioner agreed to sell the same property to Shri Dattatraya Mahadik for consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. In fact, the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from Mr.Dattatraya Mahadik. 9. What is important is that the said Dattatraya Mahadik on the basis of a Power of Attorney, executed a registered sal....