i.E. Vittal and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

.....government - petitioner contended that chapter xx-c was not applicable since transaction was completed before it became applicable to city - contended that findings of market value by first respondents was vitiated beside being erroneous finding of fact - whether chapter xx-c of act applies to transaction - whether impugned order of preemptive purchase by central government is sustainable by law - there was no completed transfer of property so chapter xxc will be applicable to above transaction - appropriate authority had not furnished documents supporting his contention which amounted to denial of opportunity of being heard resulting in violation of principles of natural justice hence unsustainable by law. head note: income tax compulsory purchase of immovable property by central government--applicability of chapter xx-c--transfer of property not completed before 1-6-1989. ratio : as there was no completed 'transfer' of the property before application of chapter xx-c to the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabad, i.e., before 1-6-1989, provisions of chapter xx-c was therefore rightly applied in the circumstances of the case. facts : the alleged transfer of the property in question was made on 16-11-1988, which was after chapter xx-a ceased to be operative and before chapter xx-c was extended to the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabad on 1-6-1989. admittedly, there has been no registered deed of sale. held : there is, however, conflict of judicial opinion on the question of applicability of chapter xx-c where an agreement coupled with delivery of possession, falls within the extended definition of 'transfer' which was completed before the coming into force of chapter xx-c. inasmuch as in the case on hand, the plea that possession was handed over was not accepted by the appropriate authority and the court is not persuaded to disturb that findings, as such there was no completed 'transfer' of the property before application of chapter xx-c to the twin.....order under s. 269ud--validity.ratio :order passed under section 269ud is not valid where the same was based on non-comparable sale instances and appropriate authority violated principles of natural justice as copies of documents relied on by him were not provided to agreement holders.heldnot providing copies of the agreements which were relied upon by the appropriate authority to record an adverse finding against the agreement holders amounts to denial of opportunity of being heard resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice which would vitiate the proceedings.what is more surprising is that the appropriate authority did not rely on sale of property in the same locality as not a comparable sale whereas he relied upon agreement for sale of property in another locality which is about 10 kms. away, treating it as a comparable sale. indeed, from the plan it appears that the comparable sale relied upon by the agreement holders is of the property which is only 250 metres away from the property in question. however, another submission is made by learned standing counsel for the revenue to disregard the sale of the said property on the ground that it relates to small extent of land. it is well-settled that consideration for sale of small extents of lands is always more than the consideration for large extents of lands. so this contention is untenable. if the consideration mentioned in this sale deed is accepted as representative of fair market value of land it becomes difficult to support or sustain the finding of understatement of consideration in the agreement for sale in question, recorded by the appropriate authority.the order passed under section 269ud is therefore quashed.application :also to current assessment years.income tax act 1961 s.269ud