C.B. GAUTAM v. . UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A given · ai:iy .opportunity to show cause against an order for compulsory purchase nor were the re.asons for the said order set out in. the order or communicated to the petitioner or other concerned parties with the ~rder. In view of what we have stated earlier .the order is clearly bad in law and it is set aside. . ··~ B The next question is as to the consequence to follow. In view of the fact that the object of the provisions of Chapter XX-C is a laudable object, namely, to counter ,evasion of tax in transactions of a sale of immovable property,. we consider it necessary to limit the retrospective operation of our judgment in such a manner as not to defeat the acquisitions altogether. c We find that if the original time frame prescribed in Chapter XX-C is rigidly applied it would not be possible for the appropriate authority concerned to pass an order under Section 269UD(l) at all in respect of the. property in question. In order to avoid that situation and, yet to en.sure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner, we order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the statement in Form 37-1 submitted by the petitioner as set out earlier shall be treated as if it were submitted on the date of the signing of this judgment. Thereafter if the. appropriate authority considers it fit, it may issue a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner and other concerned parties to show cause why an order for compulsory purchase of the property in, question should not be made under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 269UD and give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and such other concerned parties to show cause against such an order being made. In view of the limited time-frame this will have. to be done with a sense oft1~gency. If after such an oppor- tunity is give1.1 the appropriate authority so considers it fit, it may hold an inquiry, even. though summary in nature, and may pass an order for compulsory purchase by the Central Government of the property in ques- tion under Section 269UD(l). The appropriate authority will have to decide whether an inquiry is called for in the facts and circumstances of , the case after the show cause notice is issued. We are fortified in giving a somewhat limited retrospective operation of our judgment in view .of the decision by a Constitution Bench comprising five learned Judges of this Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1990) 1 SCC 12. In ·that case inspite of Section )55· of the Madras Panchayais' Act being declared ult!a vires, the State of Tamil Nadu. was held not liable to refund to the petitioners the cess co,lected by it under the provisions of the said section.

C.B. GAUTAM. v. U.O.l. [KANIA, CJ.] 53

We realise that if order for compulsory purchase of the property is made her(fafter 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 prop~rties in urban areas have gone up steeply in value during the last few years, we direct that in case an order for compulsory purchase is made the 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. c We may clarify that as far as completed transactions are concerned, namely, where after the order for compulsory purchase under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act was made and possession has been taken over, compensation paid to the owner of the ·property and accepted without protest, we see no reason to upset those transactions and hence, nothing we have said in the judgment will invalidate such purchases. The same will be the position where public auctions have been held of the properties concerned and they are purchased by third parties. In those cases also nothing which we have stated in the judgment will invalidate the pur~hases.

In the result, the writ petition transferred is allowed to the extent aforestated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

ORDER

Union of India has moved this application for certain clarifications· F and directions with a view to obviating certain difficulties that it envisages in applying the principles laid down in the main judgment dated 17.11.1992 by the Constitution Bench to cases other than the case of the ·particular petitioner in that case. We have heard learned Solicitor General in support of this application. G

2. Our attention was drawn to two aspects: one in relation to the large number of similar petitions yet pending before this Court and the various High Courts where, in view of the subsisting orders of stay operat- ing therein, it would not be possible immediately to take steps and imple- ment the directions contained in the judgment within the time frame H

54 SUPREME COL'RT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A stipula~(fd therein. The second aspect relates to pending matters before the authoriti~s, 'Vh_ich, though not pending before courts, do not also admit of applic~ti'on o( ~he· principles consistent with the statutory limit. After hearfng the leari:ed Solicit~r General, we are satisfied that the problems and qi~ficulties envisaged, in practical terms, are real. and require to be provided for. B . 3. T,he firs~ aspect arises out of the limited retrospectivity imported by the jtidgm~nt. The judgment provides that:

"in b~der to avoid that situation and, yet to ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner, we order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the statement in Form . 37-I ~itbmitted by the petitioner as set out earlier shall be treated as if it were submitted on the date of signing of ·this judgment." .

D · · Learned S~licitor General points out that in the cases where petitions are yet pending in this Court as well as in the various High Courts, the above direction becomes unworkable inasmuch as the interim orders sub- sisting in those petitions disable the authorities to carry'out the directions contained in the judgment within the stipulated time-frame and that, therefore, the directions as given in the judgment become impossible of E implementation. Learned Solicitor General suggests that, in order that the principles laid down in the judgment become workable in all other pending . cases before the courts, a clarification be made to the effect that in respect of all such cases pending before this Court' and the various High Courts, the time frame for affording of opportunity of being heard shall be reck- F. o~ed from the date of the a.ct'ual disposal of those matters by this.Court or the High Court, as the case may- be. . .

We think that this .clarification in the form of a further direction is '

necessary for a proper imp!ementation of the principles laid down in the judgment.

We, accordingly, clarify by this supplemental direction to be read as part of the judgment that in respect of cases other th~n that of petitioner - C.B. Gaµtam, the period of two months referred to in Section 269UD(l) shall be_ reckoned. with reference to the date of disposal of each of such pending matters either before this Court or before the High ca'urts as the.

C.B. GAUTAM. v. U.0.1. 55

case may be. Where, however, the stay orders inhibiting the. authorities from taking further proceedings are vacated, th~ period referred to in the said Section 269UD(l) 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.

4. The second clarification sought is in respect of matters pending before the authorities ·and which though not agitated in courts of law, are pending at various stages before the authorities in all such cases. We direct that Form 37-1 shall be deemed to have been filed as on the date of the judgment of this Court dated 17th November, 1992 for purposes of com- pletion of proceedir.gs in terms of Section 269UD(l). This further direction shall also be a part of the main judgment. c Certified copy of the main order as well as this order of clarification shall be made available to all those who seek such certified copies against payment.

G.N. Petition allowed.