BAKTHAVATSALAM, J.

The petitioners challenge the order of the appropriate authority rejecting an application of the vendors of the petitioners filed under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the statement filed by the vendors of the petitioners was premature, invalid and not actionable for certain reasons Notice of motion has been ordered by me on October 23, 1991. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale on August 9, 1989, with one Nagarathina Mudaliar and respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 for purchase of the property situate at No. 21, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Madras 34, for a total consideration of Rs. 1, 55, 43, 000. This property was acquired by the said Nagarathina Mudaliar and others, it is said, in a partition of a joint family property in 1954. Since the value of the property exceeded a sum of rupees ten lakhs, the vendors and the petitioners filed before the first respondent Form No. 37-I under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, under section 269UC. The statement was filed on August 23, 1989. By a letter dated October 17, 1989, which is impugned before me, the appropriate authority rejected the statement and directed the vendors and the petitioners to file a fresh agreement and statement under Form No. 37-I after setting right certain irregularities and infirmities discussed in the order. It is also stated by the appropriate authority that the statement filed on August 23, 1989, is non est. in law.

The petitioners alleged in the affidavit that the order of the appropriate authority is totally erroneous, illegal, opposed to the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction. It is stated that the appropriate authority under section 269UD can exercise the power of the pre-emptive purchase, and if the appropriate authority chooses not to purchase the property, and if no order of purchase is passed Within the time prescribed under section 269UC(1), no other order can be passed by the appropriate authority. It is also stated that the appropriate authority does not have the jurisdiction to vary the terms of the agreement between the parties or to improve upon the same. It is also stated that it is not open to the appropriate authority to question the title of the transferors or improve upon the same. It is for the transferors and transferees to satisfy themselves about the title of the property and the Department has no right to question the same. It is also stated, that nowhere under Chapter XX-C is any jurisdiction vested on the appropriate authority to question the validity of an agreement, so to say, whether it is valid under a general law such as personal law or partnership law, etc.. It is also alleged that when the vendors did not complete the transaction of sale, the petitioners filed a suit before the original side of this court in C.S. No. 198 of 1991, for specific performance and it Was decreed on April 23, 1991, whereby Maruthamuthu J. has held that it is a valid agreement of sale and that the vendors are bound to perform and comply with the same. In view of the judgment and decree of this court, when document of sale was executed by the vendors and the same was presented for registration before the authority, the registering authority refused to register the same. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the question in the case was decided by this court in a similar case, reported in Mount Plaza Builders Private Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority [1992] 1 MTCR 1, which is in favour of the petitioners. A Division Bench of this court also has taken the same view in the case reported in Appropriate Authority v. Naresh M. Mehta [1992] 1 MTCR 142, Mr. N. V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the Department has filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the petitioners are only agreement holders and they cannot be regarded as persons having an interest in the property and as such they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is also poi