Full Judgment
V.V. Kamat, J.
1. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order dated December 29 ,1989 (exhibit P-5) under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereunder the appropriate authority has ordered that the property covered by it shall vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrance, together with a consequential order to surrender possession thereof to the appropriate authority within 15 days of the said order.
2. There is no dispute that the order was not preceded by the necessary show-cause notice.
3. The law in regard to this is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court (C. B. Gautam v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) ). It is observed that the requirement of reasonable opportunity being given to the concerned party, particularly, the intending purchaser and the intending seller must be read into the provisions of Chapter XX-C. It is laid down and declared that before an order for compulsory purchase is made under Section 269UD, the intending purchaser and the intending seller must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against an order for compulsory purchase being made by the appropriate authority concerned. The decision also declares as to what is to be done with regard to the disposal of matters pertaining to such orders in the High Court. Accordingly, in order to ensure that no injustice is caused in the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement in Form No. 37-I submitted is to be treated as if it was submitted on the date of the signing of the judgment. It is ordered that the period of two months referred to in Section 269UD(1) has to be taken with reference to the date of disposal of each of the pending matters before the High Court as the case may be.
4. The computation of the period of two months as per the provisions of Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act is specified after the expiration of the period of two months from the end of the month in which the statement referred to in Section 269UC in respect of such property isreceived by the appropriate authority. This means that the commencement of the said period shall be on and from August 1, 1994.
5. Learned counsel urged that the impugned order is violative of the proviso to Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel brought to my notice that the date of the order is December 29, 1989. If the application (exhibit P-4) is considered, it would appear that the application does not bear any date. Even in the petition, it is not stated as to on which date the application was submitted. Even then, learned counsel made submissions on certain obvious situations. He firstly relied upon the contents of the application at page 34 (exhibit P-4) with reference to Clause (vib) which specified that consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs was payable before June 30 ,1989. Additionally, referring to the order (page 30), learned counsel submitted that on the date of the application, when an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was payable as per the contents of the application itself, the said application would have to be held as having been made between the period from July 4, 1989, and September 20, 1989. The submission has force. However, in view of the fact that a specific date is not even alleged in the petition and also in view of the fact that the question as to which date the application was made would be a question to be determined on the basis of factual material, it is not possible to consider the submission at this stage and it is made clear that it is kept open for consideration.
6. Learned counsel also additionally wanted to urge the submission based on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, in view of the contents of the agreement recording by clause 4 thereof (page 26) for handing over possession in part performance of the agreement. This aspect also would be a question to be determined on the facts and the materials. The question is also kept open.
7. For the above reasons in view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court as above, the impugned order (exhibit P-5) gets quashed and set aside with the consequence that the matter is remitted to the appropriate authority, keeping all questions open for consideration, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. The petition accordingly succeeds. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.