( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269-UD-Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act for brevity) and prays for an order directing the appropriate Authority to issue a certificate in terms of Section 269-UL (1) of the Act.

( 2 ) ON 5th April 1995, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement for purchase of the property in question for a consideration of Rs. 45,000,00/- (Rupees Forty Five Lack only); the total area of land is 2605. 32 sq. mts. On the said land, there were three structures being a (i) Bungalow; (ii) servant quarters; and (iii) a Separate structure for residence of gardener and servants. On 17th April 1995, the petitioner (intending purchaser) and respondent No. 3 (intending seller) filed form No. 37-1 in the office of the appropriate Authority. On 11th July 1995, show-cause notice was issued by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269-UD (1a) of the Act to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3. After the petitioner submitted its reply dt. 20th July 1995, the Appropriate Authority passed the order dt. 31st July 1995 under Section 269-UD (l) of the Act for purchasing the property for the Central Government. On 31st July 1995 itself the Appropriate authority also passed another order requiring respondent No. 3 to hand over the possession of the property in question. The aforesaid orders dt. 31st july 1995 have been challenged in this petition by the- petitioner intending purchaser of the said property.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that (I) the Appropriate Authority has failed to determine the fair market value of the property in question. The learned Counsel. further contended that the finding of the appropriate Authority that the Property under Consideration (PUC) was comparable to the Sale Instances properties (SIPs) was perverse; (2) the order was also otherwise bad, because the Appropriate Authority had not given any finding that the alleged undervaluation was done with a view to evade tax.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that SIPs relied upon by the Appropriate Authority were not at all comparable with the PUC. The learned counsel submitted that SIP-1 is only 50 metres away from Bombay-Pune High way which is a very major advantage apart from its being on 60 feet wide Bhau patil Road and that it is also near a junction of major link roads to enter Pune city from Bombay-Pune High Way which links Pune City to Khadki, Pimpri and Bopodi via Aundh: SIP-1, overlooks mula river and all plots in Pune abutting the Mula river command a better pries, even though, there may be slums nearby some plots. The SIP-1 is situate approximately 3 kms. away from PUC. It was further submitted that SIP-2 is also oh Bhau Patil road and surrounded by all residential buildings and societies and is on the main road.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the other hand, PUC is situate in a small lane 40 ft. wide with a dead end which ends on the main gate of the Army Vehicle depot; the PUC is near Khadki Army vehicles, Railway Transport Depot and movement of heavy Army opposite the puc disturbs peace and tranquillity of the area and has none of the location advantages possessed by SIP-2 and also by SIP-1. On the contrary, thepuc is facing 32 public toilets used by 700 members of 150 families residing in police constable tenaments and those toilets emit a foul smell which aggravates in rainy season and Wind blow in the direction of the PUC. It is also submitted that SIPs are the smaller plots compared to the PUC.

( 6 ) IT was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had, in its reply before the authority, pointed out that the PUC was comparable with the very adjoining property. The Transferee has relied upon the Transferees Sale Instance (hereinafter refer