M.P. LAKSHMAN vs APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, LTD

This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 5-2-2002 in W.P. No. 14292/1991 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.

The necessary facts are

M.P. Lakshman, appellant-petitioner, a coffee planter is a partner in a firm along with one B.S. Nagaraj and carrying on business under the style of M/s. M.P. Engineering Works. He filed a writ challenging the constitutional validity of section 269UE(i) of the Act and for quashing the order dated 13-6-1991. The same was dismissed as stated. Hence this appeal for quashing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5-2-2002 and order dated 13-6-1991.

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 department 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 9-4-1991, Both the parties to agreement filed Form No. 37-1 in accordance with chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act on 19-4-1991. A pre-emptive purchase order was passed u/s 269UB(1) of the Act vesting the property with the Central Government with the apparent consideration of Rs. 16,00,658 on 13-6-1991.

The auction was held in pursuance of the permission granted and in pursuance of the order dated 24-7-1991 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 27-3-1992. 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 up-held the constitutional validity in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 771 on 27-11-1992. Once the validity is up-held, 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 Gautams 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.