(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated March 12, 1986, of the Karnataka High Court in W. P. No. 11570 of 1985).

Income-tax---

----Compulsory acquisition of immovable property---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Chap. XX-A.

Against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the intending purchaser against orders of compulsory acquisition under Chapter XX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the intending purchaser filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mukul Madgal, Advocate for Appellant.

JUDGMENT

The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 530. wherein it was held that (pages 555, 562. 564):

"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 orirrelevant, 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 powers.:.

42. We realise that if an 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 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 orderwas made...

50.We, accordingly, clarify by this supplemental direction to be read as part of the judgment that, in respect of cases other than that of the 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.

M.B.A./1834/FCOrder accordingly.