Ajit K.Sengupta, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for purchase of the lease rights in the property being premises Nos. 7 and 7/1, Keyatala Lane, Calcutta, by the Central Government for a sum of Rs. 32,52,437 as against the consideration declared in the statement in the prescribed form, i.e., Form No. 37-I, at Rs. 1,88,33,096.
(2.) The case has a chequered history. Shortly stated, the first petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, has been functioning for the practice, profession and propagation of Buddhism. A declaration of trust dated January 25, 1956, by Smt. Susahmamayi Devi and Sambhu Nath Banerjee, since deceased, her husband, who was a judge of this High Court as the confirming party, created a trust in respect of a plot of land measuring 2 bighas, 14 cottahs, 13 chittacks, together with a two-storeyed building, being premises Nos. 7 and 7/1, Keyatala Lane, P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta. The trust was in favour of the petitioner-society. Under the terms of the trust deed, the society was to take possession of the trust estate but was to allow the settlor and her husband, the late Sambhu Nath Banerjee, during the joint lives or life of either of them to reside therein free of any rent and also to collect all rents and issues therefrom. It is only after the death of both the settlor and her husband, the confirming party, that the society will hold the property and take possession to further the objects of revival of Buddhism in India and do all such things as are required and/or conducive to the achievement of the said object, i.e., propagation of the Buddhist religion and teachings of Lord Buddha, installing and keeping installed an image of Lord Buddha in the trust estate and carrying out the daily and periodical worship and festivals of such image according to the tenets of the Buddhist religion and also arranging for lectures on panchsheels, holding meetings, gatherings or discourses, maintaining a library and reading room of Buddhist literature.
(3.) The deed of settlement, however, vested in the settlor the power of revocation, modification or alteration of the trust so created. The confirming party, the husband, Sambhu Nath Banerjee, predeceased his wife. Upon his death, the settlor, his wife, revoked the trust altogether and filed an originating summons, being Suit No. 187 of 1979 in this court, inter alia, for a declaration that the said declaration of trust dated January 25, 1956, was not binding on her. The said suit was, however, settled by consent of the parties and a decree was passed in the said suit on the basis of the terms of such settlement. Under the terms of the consent decree, the settlor, Sushamamayi Devi, was to pay to the first petitioner a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of bank draft drawn in favour of the said petitioner within a period of six months from the date of filing of the terms of settlement, time being the essence of such settlement. The decree further provided that upon such payment by the said settlor, plaintiff, the society, the first petitioner, was to execute at its cost a deed of disclaimer and/or surrender releasing its right, title and interest whatsoever in the trust estate, viz., premises Nos. 7 and 7/1, Keyatala Lane, Calcutta.;