- (1.) THESE two petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, under Section 269ud (1) of the IT Act ('the Act' for short) for compulsorily purchasing the piece and parcel of land at Mouje Aund, District Pune, bearing old plot No. 374/375 and new No. 228 and bearing old survey number and sub-division Nos. 3 to 55, 57, 58, 61 to 78, 135, 136 and new survey No. 74 admeasuring 1,000 sq. mtrs. in Sindh Co-op. Soc. Ltd. Aund, Pune (hereinafter referred to as suit property for short ).
(2.) THE basic ground of the challenge raised in both these petitions relates to the validity of the show-cause notices dt. 31st Jan. , 1994 issued by the Appropriate Authority to both the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why their properties in question should not be purchased under Chapter XX-C of the Act. The show-cause notices referred to herein are incorporated at Exhibit 'h' annexed to the petitions, the contents of which are identical. The same are reproduced hereinbelow : "you have submitted Form No. 37-I on 1st Nov. , 1993 for the property having description as per col. No. 7 of annexure to the form as follows : Plot No. 228, Sind Co-op. Hsg. Soc, Ltd. , Aund Rd. , Pune-411007 (to the extent of 1,000 sq. mtrs. within ceiling limit ). The apparent consideration for the same has been declared Rs. 25,00,000. You are requested to show cause as to why the property should not be purchased under the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961: Your reply should reach this office latest by 14th Feb. , 1994 at 3:00 p. m. positively by speed post, If you desire personal hearing, you may attend this office on 15th Feb. , 1994 to 3. 30 p. m. "
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the aforesaid show-cause notices impugned in these petitions are vague and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautam v. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : (1993) 199 ITR 530 (SC), followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments delivered in the case of Mrs. Nirmal Laxminarayan Graver v. Appropriate Authority (1997) 139 CTR (Bom ). 40 : (1997) 223 ITR 572 (Bom) and Jagdish Electronics (India) (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. (2000) 161'ctr (Bom) 533 : (2000) 242 ITR 326 (Bom ).;