Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The appellants challenge under Article 226 to the order passed by the Appropriate Authorities under Section 266-UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as the Act) was turned down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. They have therefore assailed the decision of the High Court before us.
(2.) The property which was the subject-matter of the order under Section 269-UD(1) was part of premises situated at Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The entire premises covered an area of about 7100 sq. mts. and was jointly owned by one Leila D. Lean and her two sisters. On 13th March, 1988, the three owners agreed to sell the entire premises to the appellants. Before the conveyance could be executed, Leila Lean died. The executor named in her will, through a general Power of Attorney Holder, one Sri Armugham, entered into a fresh agreement with the appellants on 27th April, 1989 agreeing to sell Leila Leans 1/3 undivided share in the property. The two other sisters appointed the appellants as their power of attorney holders. In their capacity as the power of attorney holders the appellants sold demarcated portions of the property to nominees of the appellants by eight separate agreements executed and registered between 28th April, 1989 and 31st May, 1989.
(3.) On 1st June, 1989, Chapter XX-C of the Act which statutorily provides for the compulsory purchase by the Central Government of immovable properties in certain cases of transfer came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Chapter was introduced in an effort to curb tax evasion by under valuation of the property sold. The substance of the provisions of Chapter XX-C which are relevant for the determination of the issues raised in this appeal are briefly considered.;