The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must come to the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts when seeking relief under discretionary writ jurisdiction.

1. Avenue Realities and Developers Private Limited on 21st May, 1996 filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 29th February, 1996 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) questioning and challenging acquisition/compulsory purchase by the Central Government of the immovable property bearing No. S-380, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (the property, for short).

2. Arguments in the said writ petition were heard and judgment was reserved vide order dated 15th November, 2011. However, the matter was re-listed for further arguments on 3rd January, 2012, when the following order was passed:-

“Judgment in this case was reserved on 15th November, 2011. On going through the file it is noticed that the Revenue had filed C.M.No.2208/1997 for vacation of stay. In this application, it is stated that the order under Section 269 UD (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 29th February, 1996 and thereafter Rs. 2,37,00,000/- was paid to the sellers, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 22nd March, 1996. Petitioner, the intending purchaser, had received a payment of Rs. 42,00,000/- on 17th March, 1996. The present writ petition was filed on 21st May, 1996, but was returned under office objection and was re-filed on 2nd July, 1996.

It appears that in the pleadings i.e. the writ petition and the rejoinder, it is not stated and averred that payment of Rs. 2,37,00,000/- was made to the sellers and Rs. 42,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner in March, 1996 and the same was accepted. In these circumstances, we have listed the matter for directions.

Learned counsel for the parties will address arguments on the said aspects.

Relist on 6th February, 2012.”

3. The arguments were heard on the said aspects and thereafter judgment was reserved on 27th February, 2012. We may note that on some dates adjournments were given as Mr. Arun Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner was unwell.

4. The petitioner had entered into an agreement of purchase of the property dated 19th November, 1995 with Lakshmi Rajagopal, Dr. Usha Rajagopal and Geetha Krishnan at a purchase price of Rs. 2,79,00,000/- exclusive of conversion charges for obtaining freehold rights payable to Delhi Development Authority(DDA). The said charges were payable by the petitioner. Lakshmi Rajagopal, Dr. Usha Rajagopal and Geetha Krishnan are respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to the present writ petition but they have not been served by the petitioner and have not filed any counter affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 29th February, 1996 is vitiated and is contrary to law for several reasons, namely:

(1) Neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order there is an allegation of evasion of tax,, that the sale consideration was understated and there was payment of under hand money;

(2) The appropriate authority has not calculated the fair market value of the property as per law. Appropriate deductions on following counts have not been given:-

(i) The property was owned by three persons.

(ii) The property is not mutated in the names of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 though they had a Letter of Administration in their favour.

(iii) The leasehold rights in the records of the DDA was in the name of late C.N. Rajagopal.

(iv) The property is located on 80 ft. main road facing the village adjoining Malviya Nagar.

(v) The property is sher mukha.

(vi) Inconvenience and the expenses involved for conversion of the property into freehold has not been considered.

(3) Appropriate Authority had granted permission under Chapter XXC of the Act for another property S-131, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi vide order dated 15th March, 1996 admeasuring 424.67 square meter. Apparent sale consideration in the said case was Rs. 3,15,50,000/-.

(4) Appropriate Authority has wrongly computed per square meter fair market price of land by proportionately increasing the price of the comparable for the additional FAR.

6. We