Sasmita Investments Ltd. Vs Appropriate Authority & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that in compulsory purchase order declaration of abrogation was not barred by virtue of section 269-UH and/ or section 293 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order passed by Single Judge not sustainable.
Facts- The above appeal takes exception to the order dated 7th April 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant [Original Plaintiff] on the ground that it was barred under the provisions of Section 269-UN and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
It is contented that if the Central Government fails to tender [under subsection (1) of Section 269-UG] or deposit [under sub-section (2) or subsection (3) of Section 269-UG], the whole or any part of the amount of consideration required to be tendered or deposited within the period specified, the order to purchase the immovable property by the Central Government made under sub-section (1) of Section 269-UD shall stand abrogated and the immovable property shall stand re-vested in the transferor after the expiry of the aforesaid period. He submitted that this happens by operation of law as stipulated in Section 269-UH. Here, it is the specific case of the Plaintiff that since the consideration was not tendered within the time stipulated as set out under Section 269-UG [i.e. by 31st October 2002], the 3rd Compulsory Purchase Order [dated 12th September 2002], by operation of law, stood abrogated and the suit property stood re-vested in the transferors, namely, the Mulanis and Defendant No.19 [Omprakash Navani] after the expiry of the aforesaid period. It is this declaration that is sought in the above suit. Since the Plaintiff has thereafter purchased the suit property from the Mulanis and Defendant No.19 [Omprakash Navani], consequential reliefs are also sought as set out earlier.
