High Court Of Karnataka
M.P. Lakshman vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors.
Sections 269UD, 269UE
N.K. Jain, C.J. & V.G. Sabhahit, J.
Writ Appeal No. 2158 of 2002
16th January, 2003
Counsel Appeared
S. Parthasarathi, for the Appellant : M.V. Vedachala, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
N.K. JAIN, C.J. :
This writ appeal is filed against the order dt. 5th Feb., 2002, in Writ Petn. No. 14292/1991 [reported as M.P. Lakshman vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. (2003) 180 CTR (Kar) 544—Ed.] passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.
2. The necessary facts are: M.P. Lakshman, appellant-petitioner, a coffee planter, is a partner in a firm along with one B.S. Nagaraj andcarrying on business under the style of M/s M.P. Engineering Works. He filed a writ challenging the constitutional validity of s. 269UE(1) of the Act and for quashing the order dt. 13th June, 1991. The same was dismissed as stated. Hence this appeal for quashing the order of the learned Single Judge, dt. 5th Feb., 2002, and order dt. 13th June, 1991.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the intending purchaser is entitled to get the advantage as the order is to the effect that the auction is subject to result of the writ petition and the same will not prejudice the bona fide purchaser.
On the other hand, learned Departmental Advocate submits that the alleged intending purchaser has no right to get any further opportunity. Once after the modification of the order of this Court, the auction was completed and compensation was also paid to the owner of the property and the order of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record and the case law.
As per the facts culled out, the agreement of sale was entered into by S.G. Rajagopal (owner), respondent No. 4 herein, in favour of M.P. Lakshman, appellant-purchaser to sell site No. 48, 1st A cross, R.M.V. Extension, Bangalore, on 9th April, 1991. Both the parties to agreement filed Form No. 37-I in accordance with Chapter XX- C of the IT Act on 19th April, 1991. A pre-emptive purchase order was passed under s. 269UD(1) of the Act vesting the property with the Central Government with the apparent consideration of Rs. 16,00,658 on 13th June, 1991.
The auction was held in pursuance of the permission granted and in pursuance of the order dt. 24th July, 1991, modifying the interim order. The property was put up for public auction and one Krishna Murthy purchased the property. Consideration amount was paid and property was handed over to Krishna Murthy on 27th March, 1992, Under the circumstances, the auction was complete in favour of the bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the appellant- petitioner cannot challenge the same on the ground that no opportunity was given, more particularly when the writ was dismissed. The apex Court has already upheld the constitutional validity in C.B. Gautham vs. Union of India (1992) 108 CTR (SC) 304 r/w (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 179 : AIR 1994 SC 771 on 27th Nov., 1992. Once the validity is upheld, the same cannot be challenged. However, while upholding the validity, their Lordships’ directed that an opportunity of hearing shall be given only in those cases where the transaction has not been completed. In the instant case, as stated the transaction was completed and compensation was already paid. Under the circumstances, the question of giving an opportunity does not arise. The appellant has no subsisting right nor can challenge the same on the ground of not being given opportunity being an intending purchaser at this stage. The learned Single Judge considering the apex Court order in Gautham’s case (supra) and by an elaborate order has not interfered. On consideration and as discussed above, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference. Writ appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 262 ITR 228]
