PETITIONER:
SRI NANDLAL TEJMAL KOTHARI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 78] wherein it was held that:
"31. The recording of reasons which
lead to the passing of the order is
basically intended to serve a two-
fold purpose:
(1) that the "party aggrieved" in
the proceeding before (sic the
appropriate authority)
acquires knowledge of the
reasons and in a proceeding
before the High Court or the
Supreme Court (since there is
no right of appeal or
revision), it has an
opportunity to demonstrate
that the reasons which
persuaded the authority to
pass an order adverse to his
interest were erroneous,
irrational or irrelevant, and
(2) that the obligation to record
reasons and convey the same to
the party concerned operates
as a deterrent against
possible arbitrary action by
the quasi-judicial or the
executive authority invested
with judicial power.
42. We realise that if order for
compulsory purchase of the property
is made hereafter the intending
vendor will suffer to some extent
by reason of the fact that he will
get the purchase amount several
years after the time he would have
got it had the impugned order been
held to be valid. But on the other
hand, however, he would have
retained the possession of the
property in question. Taking into
account these factors and taking
note of the fact that the immovable
properties in urban areas last few
years, we direct that in case
Central Government shall pay to the
intending seller the amount of the
apparent consideration plus
interest at 9 per cent per annum
from the date the impugned order
was made.
50. We, accordingly, clarify by
this supplemental direction to be
read as part of the judgment that
in respect of case other than that
of petitioner - C.B. Gautam, the
period of two months referred to in
Section 269-UD(1) shall be reckoned
with reference to the date of
disposal of each of such pending
matters either before this Court or
before the High Courts as the case
may be. Where, however, the stay
orders inhibiting the authorities
from taking further proceedings are
vacated, the period referred to in
the said Section 269-UD(1) shall be
reckoned with reference to the date
of such vacating of the stay
orders. This clarification and
further direction shall be
supplemental to and be treated as
parts of the main judgment."
Following the above ratio, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.