A.P. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the rules of the court, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission after the exchange of affidavits.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks the quashing of ordef dated May 12, 1993, annexure-4 to the writ petition by virtue of which respondent No. 1 has rejected the explanation given by the petitioner and applied the formula of Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre for fixing the price of the property of the petitioner. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with one Sri Sarv Kanwal Jit Singh, respondent No. 3, for purchasing a residential plot No. 209, measuring an area of 450 sq. metres. The total consideration as agreed between the parties for the said property was Rs. 2,700,000 which comes to Rs. 4,600 per sq. metre. In pursuance of the said agreement, an application was moved before the Income-tax Officer in Forms Nos. 34 and 37-I for getting the required permission. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a show-cause notice by respondent No. 1 stating that he has undervalued the property and, therefore, the Appropriate Authority, Lucknow, proposed to exercise a right of pre-emptive purchase in exercise of the powers as conferred by the Income-tax Act under Chapter XX-C. He further recited some exemplars on the basis of which conclusion was drawn that the market value of the property comes to Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed reply in which certain exemplars were also filed along with the site map repelling the citation of the show-cause notice. It was stated that the citation shown in the show-cause notice is situated just in front of a park and, therefore, their value naturally increases while the petitioner's plot does not have an advantageous position. However, as the vendors were in dire need of money and the petitioner was willing to pay him right through the entire amount at the time of the execution of sale deed. The contention is that exercise of pre-emptive right of purchase made by the respondents by means of the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The contention is that even as per the record of the respondents the market value could only be Rs. 5,300 and if that be taken into consideration it would be marginally over 15 per cent. of the market value at which the petitioner (vendee) is purchasing hence the exercise of power is illegal and is liable to be set aside. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the Revenue by learned standing counsel relying on Rajata Trust v. Chief CIT [1992] 193 ITR 220 (Kar). It is urged that a person who had entered into agreement for purchase of property is not a person interested. He cannot object to the purchase by the Central Government. It is not necessary to go into this as the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] UPTC 163 ; [1993] 199 ITR 530 has held : "Compulsory purchase under Section 269UD intending purchaser and intending seller must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before an order for compulsory purchase is made."
(3.) COMING to the merits of the case, we find, in this case, before having recourse to passing an order under Section 269UD, the respondent has given opportunity to the petitioner by issuance of a show-cause notice dated May 3, 1993, annexure-3, to the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard. The only question remains whether the impugned order passed is valid or not. The respondents, while passing the impugned order dated May 12, 1993, had relied on the four exemplars quoted in the show-cause notice and arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the plot in question is Rs. 5,500 per sq. metre. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that in order to arrive at the market value mere reliance on the exemplars without examining the situation of the plots would not be justified. The price of a plot in the same area increases or decreases on account of the plots placed. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed in Om Shri Jigar Association v. Union of India [1994] 209 ITR 608 (Guj). This case, in fact, does not lend support to the Revenue except, where the sale property is undervalued to the extent of 15 per cent. or more, there could be a presumption that it was to evade tax. However, this presumption is rebuttable. In that case, the property was sold after inviting offers from the public at large by advertisement in the newspaper and even after executing the agreement to sell, objections were invited. It is held that the price being lower by more than 15 per cent. of the market value, it cannot be a case of exercise of power under Chapter XX-C. In Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari v. S. K. Laul [1994] 208 ITR 734 (Bom), it is held that the purchase of immovable property by the Central Government, where the order of purchase was made after considering material on record it cannot be set aside unless the order is perverse. It is true that where an order is passed after taking into consideration the materials on record and after considering the same it cannot be said that the order is perverse or is illegal.;