VENKATASWAMI J.

(7-3-1989). -Aggrieved by an order of the second respondent under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in and by which it was decided to purchase the immovable property belonging to the petitioner situated in R. S. No. 4487 and bearing door No. 126, Santhome High Road, Madras-600 028, the present writ petition challenging the said order has been filed Brief facts are as under : The petitioner, as owner of the said property, entered into an agreement on January 29, 1988, with the third respondent agreeing to transfer 90.505% of his right, title and interest in the property in question for a consideration of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50. The petitioner under the said agreement proposed to retain 9.495% of his right, title and interest and in addition to that, made the third respondent agree to construct for him a flat of about 1, 715 sq.ft. built-up area along with 160 sq.ft. covered car park space at a cost of Rs. 3, 30, 300. As required under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner forwarded a duly verified statement in Form No. 37-1 and also a copy of the agreement of sale dated January 29, 1988. This was received by the second respondent on January 29, 1988, as seen from the impugned order. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the second respondent is expected to pass orders within 60 days of the receipt of the statement in Form No. 37-1 regarding purchase of the property. In accordance with that, just before the expiry of the last day, the second respondent, by order dated March 28, 1988, has passed the impugned order deciding to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50.

Mr. V. P. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that from a reading of paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it will be crystal clear that the same has been passed hastily and without application of mind, on the last day. In other words, the contention of learned counsel is that though the property agreed to be sold by the petitioner to the third respondent was in respect of 90.505% of the right, title and interest in the property for a consideration of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50, the impugned order will show that the second respondent has decided to purchase the entirety of the property for the sum of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50. On this ground alone, according to learned counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, though in fact, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, various other grounds have been raised challenging the impugned orderMrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that a fair reading of the entire order will show that what was decided to be purchased by the second respondent was only 90.505% of the right, title and interest in the property in question and not 100% as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that this has been expressly made clear in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the order impugned cannot be quashed on the ground that it proposed to purchase 100% right, title and interest in the property for a consideration of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50

I have carefully perused the impugned order in the light of the rival submissions advanced before me. I am inclined to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. My reasons are the following : paragraphs Nos. 1 to 5 in the impugned order set out only the facts relating to the case before the second respondent. The crucial paragraph is paragraph 6. A reading of this paragraph will lead any one to the only conclusion that the second respondent has decided to purchase 100% of the right, title and interest in the property in question for a sum of Rs. 32, 76, 733.50. For better appreciation, paragraph 6 is extracted below.

"As per the reasons recorded by us separately, we have come to the unanimous conclusion that the said property is fit for purcha