Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996 passed by a learned single judge of this court whereby the learned single judge disposed of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short). The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarized as under : (a) Madhusudan Das, the owner of the property -in -dispute, that is 18, Dent Mission Road, Calcutta -23, executed a registered deed of trust on June 4, 1985 appointing the writ petitioners as the trustees with power to transfer the property. The entire premises is under the occupation of the premises tenants. (b) On December 8, 1994 the said trustees entered into an agreement for sale with M/s. Webstar Industries Private Limited, the respondent no. 4 in this appeal, at the consideration of Rs. 33,50,000/ - (Rupees thirty three lakh fifty thousand) only on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and accepted earnest money of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees fifty thousand) only from the Vendees. (c) The vendors and the vendees jointly furnished statements to Form No. 37 -1 to the Appropriate Authority under Sec. 269 UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (d) On March 9, 1995 the Appropriate Authority issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioners asking them to show cause as to why the subject property should not be purchased by the Central Government under the pre -emptive right under Sec. 269UD(1) of the said Act at an effective apparent consideration of Rs. 31,06,000/ - (Rupees thirty one lakh six thousand) only. The writ petitioners and the purchaser submitted their replies to the show cause notices. (e) However, the Appropriate Authority passed an order under Sec. 269 UD (1). It was ordered that "the said property described in the schedule appearing below is hereby purchased by the Central Government at an amount of Rs. 31,06,000/ -(Rupees thirty one lakh six thousand) only being an amount equal to the amount of effective apparent consideration. The transferor with hand over the possession of the free property in terms of the agreement dated 8.12.94." (f) The Appropriate Authority on April 25, 1995 issued a notice to the owners asking them to give vacant possession. It was stated "We require you to give vacant possession of the property in question to the Appropriate Authority, Calcutta immediately or receipt of the letter. The paragraph 2 of the said notice runs as under :
(2.) In this contest your attention is invited to the provisions of Sec. 269 -UE(1) of the I. T. Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1993 in terms of which the property in questions has vested in the Central Government on the date when the order was passed under Sec. 269 -UD(1) of the I.T. Act, namely, 31st March, 1995. The said vesting of the property must be in terms of the agreement for transfer, that is in terms of Clauses 1 and 4 of the agreement dated 8th December, 1994 and the property has vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances on 31st March. 1995. (g) The Central Government deposited the apparent consideration with the Appropriate Authority on April 28, 1995. (h) On or about May 12, 1995 the present writ petition was moved challenging the actions of the Appropriate Authority under Sec. 269 UD(1). In a supplementary affidavit dated May 15, 1995 it was specifically stated that the Appropriate Authority did not tender the amount of apparent consideration to the owners in terms of the provisions of Ss. 269 UF and UG. 2. A learned single judge of this court by the judgment and order dated March 27, 1996 disposed of the writ petition holding that the Central Government has failed to carry out the obligations imposed upon it by the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the deposit made by it was not in compliance with the said Act and therefore, the said deposit was an invalid deposit. It was, further, held that the order of vesting stood abrogated in view of the specific provisions contained in Sec. 269UH(1) and the subject property stood reinvested to the original owners. Appropriate Authority was directed to issue necessary declaration and to take all steps under Sec. 269UH(2) of the said Act. It was held that the right of the Government to get possession of the property, which has vested in it, was not dependent upon performance of any agreement by the seller.
(3.) Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition. It is submitted that as in spite of demand possession was not delivered by the owners, the amount was not tendered to the owners, but was deposited with the Appropriate Authority within the time and as such the learned judge ought not to have held that such deposit of amount with the Appropriate Authority was invalid and therefore, the subject property stood re -vested in the original owners.;