Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 136 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the property namely D-203, defense Colony, New Delhi, which is the 1st floor and the terrace floor.

2. The Revenue invoked Chapter XXC of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for compulsory purchase of the property and made an order under Section 269UD of the Act, on 30th March, 1993, for apparent consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs.

3. The petitioner has challenged the said order made by the authority under the Act under Section 269UD on the ground that the amounts as contemplated under Section 269UF has not been tendered in time to the petitioner. It may be noted that the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 makes it clear that the order was forwarded on 31st March, 1993. However, the same was returned unserved. It may be noted that the said letter was addressed to the transferor only. It is, thereafter, on 19th April, 2004, Chief CIT, IT-II, Delhi, sent, a letter to the transferor-Col. Narender Pal Singh, intimating that sale consideration is to be tendered to him and asking him to hand over the original title deed of the said property and also to show that all dues and taxes as per agreement to sell have been paid. The copy of the said letter is also annexed with the affidavit as Annex. R-2. Thus, it is very clear that it was the intention of the Revenue to make the payment to the transferor only, and not to the person in whose favor an agreement to sell the property was executed (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee'). It is not disputed before the Court that the vendor received a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs by a cheque dt. 22nd Dec., 1992 and that remaining sum of Rs. 21 lakhs was to be paid to the vendor by the petitioner at the time of registration of a conveyance deed. It is not the case of the Revenue before the Court that there was dispute between the buyer and the seller or a third person as to the amount of purchase money having been paid or as to the apportionment of the amount forming part of the purchase money. It is not the say of the Revenue that on account of dispute that amount was tendered to the Central Government. There is nothing to indicate that even transferee was informed by a letter to come and collect the amount which he paid under an agreement to the transferor. It is in this background, the case is required to be considered. The Supreme Court had an occasion to examine this aspect in detail in case of Asgar S. Patel and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , which is followed by this Court in case of Raj Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petn. No. 395 of 1994, decided on 30th Oct., 2003. This matter was with reference to the ground floor of the premises in question.

4. Before this Court, in the present petition, Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union of India could not point out that the amount was tendered to the transferee or any action was taken so far as to indicate that the Department was willing to make the payment to the transferee to the extent to which is indicated in the agreement to sell. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of the Court, it is clear that Section 269UH will be applicable in the instant case and property shall revest in the transferor as order made by the authority under Section 269UD(1) dt. 30th March, 1993 stands abrogated. In view of the provisions contained in Sections 269UF and 269UG, the petition stands allowed accordingly.