KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

KRISHNA KUMAR RAWAT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The market value determination by the appropriate authority was based on proper evidence and was not arbitrary. Pre-emptive purchase under s.269UD(1) was rightly ordered as market value was 15% higher than apparent consideration. Findings were consistent across all courts, and refund/disbursement matters are governed by s.269UG(4) and must be decided by the appropriate authority, not by court direction.

Parties
Appellant: Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.; Vendor/respondent No.3: Smt. Mithilesh Kumari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposal of Appeals From Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur; Linked Review Petition
Outcome
C.A. Nos.9800-9801/2010 dismissed; C.A. No.9901/2010 partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Pre Emptive Purchase, Vesting of Property, Refund of Sale Consideration, Market Value Assessment
Income Tax Property Law Pre Emptive Purchase Vesting of Property Refund of Sale Consideration Market Value Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors.

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Smt. Mithilesh Kumari

Vendor/respondent No.3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposal of Appeals From Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur; Linked Review Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-emptive purchase order under s.269UD(1) validly determined market value exceeding apparent consideration by 15% to warrant vesting of property in Central Government.
  2. 2 Whether the Division Bench correctly directed refund and interest to prospective buyer, or whether s.269UG(4) governs disbursement.
  3. 3 Whether the findings of appropriate authority, writ court, appellate court, and review court require appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The market value determination by the appropriate authority was based on proper evidence and was not arbitrary. Pre-emptive purchase under s.269UD(1) was rightly ordered as market value was 15% higher than apparent consideration. Findings were consistent across all courts, and refund/disbursement matters are governed by s.269UG(4) and must be decided by the appropriate authority, not by court direction.

Court Disposition

C.A. Nos.9800-9801/2010 dismissed; C.A. No.9901/2010 partly allowed.

Orders

  • Pre-emptive purchase order under s.269UD(1) upheld; suit land vested in Central Government.
  • Refund/disbursement of sale consideration to be decided by appropriate authority under s.269UG(4) of the Act; High Court’s direction for FDR disbursement set aside.