Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

The petitioners herein seek review of the judgment dated 29.07.2019 in C.A. No. 9800-9801 of 2010 whereby this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.744 of 1994 and the order dated 24.07.2007 in D.B. Civil Review Petition No.80 of 2007; and this Court declined to interfere in the order of preemptive purchase passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

The petitioners had been the prospective purchasers of a parcel of land admeasuring around 9500 sq. yards/7945 sq. meters along with two Godowns (Nos. 13 and 14) and certain other structures standing thereon, which were part of Khasra No. 126 situated at village Durgapur, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. After the requisite information about the agreement for the proposed purchase was furnished under Section 269UC of the Act, the appropriate authority obtained the Valuation Officer's report and issued show cause notice under Section 269UD(1A) of the Act, stating therein that apparent sale consideration of Rs.99,84,500/- (Rs. 1051/- per sq. yard) was on the lower side and the value of the property was much higher than the agreed rate. After the prospective buyers as also the vendors had submitted their replies and after making necessary inquiries and hearing the parties, the appropriate authority passed an order on 30.03.1994 for compulsory purchase of the property in question by the Central Government at an amount equal to the apparent consideration fixed by the parties.

The appellants challenged the said order dated 30.03.1994 by way of a writ petition, being W. P. No. 1899 of 1994. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by the order dated 14.09.1994 dismissed the writ petition. Further attempt by the appellants in intra-court appeal also failed when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals by the order dated 31.05.2007. Yet another attempt by the appellant to seek review of the order so passed in intra-court appeal also failed when the review petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 24.07.2007.

In appeal before this Court, the appellants reiterated largely the same submissions which were addressed in the High Court and also put forward a few new submissions. However, this Court found no reason to accept those submissions while holding that the appropriate authority and the High Court were right in their respective approach, the reasoning and the conclusion. This Court found that a categorical finding was recorded by the appropriate authority that the fair market value of the property in question was 15% more than the apparent consideration mentioned by the parties in the agreement of sale. This Court found no reason to hold a fresh inquiry into the issues, which are largely of facts, particularly when the issues had already been examined at four stages i.e., first by the appropriate authority; then by the learned Single Judge of the High Court; further by the Division Bench of the High Court in intra-court appeal; and lastly, again by the Division Bench of the High Court in review petition.

In the totality of the circumstances of the case, after having gone through the contents of the review petitions, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record so as to reconsider the matter over again; and we see no reason to interfere.

The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.