JUDGMENT
1. Respondent No. 5, the owner of the property, 6, Alipore Road, and the petitioner and 21 others entered into an agreement to sell dated October 8, 1991, whereby the latter agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 180 lakhs from the former. A sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was received by the fifth respondent as earnest money from the intending purchasers. On October 21, 1991, a statement in Form No. 37-I was filed before the appropriate authority which was signed by respondent No. 5 as transferor and by the petitioner and others as transferees. Thereafter, on December 30, 1991, the appropriate authority ordered pre-emptive purchase of the property under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for an amount equal to the apparent consideration, viz., Rs. 180 lakhs. On the same day, the appropriate authority issued an order under section 269UE of the Act directing the transferor and any other person in possession of the property to surrender or deliver possession thereof to it within 15 days of the service of the said order. A perusal of the writ petition shows that while in the prayer the petitioner has challenged the pre-emptive purchase and eviction orders, in the body of the writ petition the thrust is against the eviction order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has two capacities, one as the purchaser of the property and the other as tenant and he is challenging the impugned orders in both the capacities. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and for respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the pre-emptive purchase order inasmuch as he had waived his right to challenge the same. In support of this contention, our attention has been drawn to the letters of the petitioner dated January 8, 1992, and January 15, 1992, addressed to the appropriate authority. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel that the petitioner accepted the refund of the advance payment from the transferor. It is, however, not disputed that the petitioner can raise objections to the quite orders before the appropriate authority.
4. We have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the letter of the petitioner dated January 15, 1992, addressed to the appropriate authority shows that the petitioner had no objection to the payment of the full consideration amount by the Union of India to respondent No. 5. The petitioner also accepted the position that he will get the refund of the advance payment from the transferor, in the event of payment of full consideration to respondent No. 5 by the Union of India. Again the letter dated January 8, 1992, clearly reveals that the petitioner did not feel aggrieved of the purchase of the property by the Union of India under section 269UD of the 1961 Act, rather the letter states : “I am very much pleased to know that you have purchased the property, 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, and now you are the present landlord of the aforesaid property.” In recognition of respondent No. 1 being the landlord of the property, the petitioner also enclosed with the letter a cheque for Rs. 1,100 being the rent in advance for the month of January, 1992. The petitioner having accepted the position that respondent No. 1 was the landlord of the property and he having taken no objection to the payment of sale consideration to respondent No. 5, we see no justification for the attempt on the part of the petitioner to challenge the pre-emptive purchase by means of the present writ petition, especially when the petitioner has received and accepted the refund of advance payment of the sale consideration.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the pre-emptive purchase order and accordingly decline the prayer of the petitioner in this behalf.
6. In so far as the eviction order dated December 30, 1991, asking the petitioner to hand over possession of the property is concerned, the matter is remanded to the appropriate authority with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to the quit order and decide the same after hearing the petitioner in person or through counsel. The petitioner will appear before the appropriate authority on May 6, 1993, at 11 a.m.