M.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed by the parties, the writ petition was finally heard and is disposed of by this order at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE petitioner is a lessee of residential plot No, 133 in Block "A", Sector 15A, at NOIDA, District Ghaziabad. THE lessor is the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the area of the plot is about 465 square meters. THE petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot to one Devesh Behari Saxena for a consideration of Rs. 20,21,000, vide agreement to sell dated January 22,1993. In accordance with Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed by the petitioner and the prospective buyer. THE appropriate authority, vide order dated March 24, 1993, made an order under Section 269UD of the Act for the purchase by the Central Government of the said plot of land. It is that order which is under challenge in the present petition. The petitioner's contention is that he is an exporter and having obtained larger export orders, he was in urgent need of money and started looking for a buyer and, ultimately, agreed to sell the property to Devesh Behari Saxena for the aforesaid consideration. It is alleged that Shri Saxena paid a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as earnest money while the other persons were not willing to pay more than Rs. 2 lakhs. A copy of the agreement to sell with Shri Saxena has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. After the filing of the statement in Form No. 37-I, the petitioner received a letter from the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax Department asking for certain information. A similar letter dated February 8, 1993, was received from the appropriate authority. The petitioner, vide his letter dated February 20, 1993, informed that he had received a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as earnest money by cheque which had been credited to his account. The petitioner also received a notice dated February 25, 1993, asking the petitioner to show cause till March 16, 1993, as to why the property in question should not be acquired by the Central Government. According to the petitioner, the said show-cause notice did not contain any reason as to why the property was being acquired and what was the material before the appropriate authority which enabled it to exercise its option of purchase. According to the petitioner, the option to purchase could be exercised only if the appropriate authority was satisfied that there had been a deliberate effort to evade tax. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner started making efforts to find out what were the reasons that could have weighed with the appropriate authority. However, the petitioner suddenly fell ill and was confined to bed, as he was running high fever. The petitioner, therefore, through letter dated March 12, 1993, sent through speed post, asked for another date. In spite of the petitioner's illness, he sent a letter dated March 16, 1993, which was received by the appropriate authority on the same date, mentioning, inter alia, that no grounds had been given in the notice which had lead the appropriate authority to come to the conclusion that the property in question needed to be acquired. According to the petitioner, for want of the aforesaid information, the show-cause notice was illusory.
(3.) THE appropriate authority adjourned the hearing for a period of just three days and the next date was fixed as March 19, 1993. THE petitioner, therefore, sent a telegram on March 17, 1993, requesting further adjournment. According to the petitioner, the appropriate authority disregarding the request made by the petitioner proceeded to deal with the matter ex parte which is wholly illegal, perverse and against the provisions of law. According to the petitioner, under Section 269UC, a reasonable opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner and this implies that the person required to show cause should be informed of the grounds on which the authority concerned is placing reliance. It is further stated that although the petitioner was unable to attend the hearing on March 19, 1993, the purchaser filed a reply on March 19, 1993. It is alleged that the disregard of the petitioner's request for postponement of the hearing was illegal and the appropriate authority passed the impugned order mechanically, without application of mind and on irrelevant considerations. It is contended that the sale consideration agreed to between the parties represented the correct fair market value of the property as there was a sewerage outlet in front of the aforesaid plot and there was a 14 feet deep huge pit on the plot which required considerable expenditure in filling up, and the location of the plots relied upon by the appropriate authority was better as compared to the plot in question. It is further contended that no case of evasion of tax was made out by the appropriate authority and, hence, the purchase by the Central Government could not be ordered. According to the petitioner, in the examples cited by the appropriate authority in two cases, there had been no sale.;