2006 (7) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITR 530, the issue regarding constitutional validity of section 269UD does not survive since it has already been decided and the validity of the legislation is upheld by the apex court. He, however, submits that while confirming the constitutional validity, the apex court read down the provisions of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act. Hence the acquisition of the property under section 269UD has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Submissions: Mr. Mistry submits that the petitioners would be entitled for an opportunity of hearing as laid down by the apex court in C.B. Gautam's case [1993] 199 ITR 530. In his submission, the matter needs to be remanded back to the competent authority for consideration afresh. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... steps shall be taken by the parties pursuant to the order passed under section 269UD(1) dated June 29, 1992, (exhibit F to the petition) except as is provided in the following paragraphs. 3. Within two weeks from today respondents Nos. 1 to 4 will restore possession of Flat No. 38 along with Garage No. 38 at "Hill Park", Alexander Graham Bell Road, Bombay 400006 hereinafter referred to as "the property" to the first petitioner along with the keys to the said flat and garage. 4. Within two weeks from today, the first petitioner will provide to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 full particulars of the person or persons entitled to occupy the property or claiming any interest therein. 5. The first petitioner, his successors, servants and/or ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hance the amount of the consideration payable. (b) any damage or material alteration is caused to the property, other than normal wear and tear, the amount of the consideration shall be reduced by such sum as respondents Nos. 1 to 3, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may by order determine after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the first petitioner. 8. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 entitled to refund the amount of Rs. 1,12,08,705 to the Central Government. 9. Petition to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 163 of 1991. 10. Notice of this petition to be given to the Attorney General of India. Consideration: Having heard the rival parties, a perusal of the aforesaid interim consent order, it would be clear....