1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 1995 Steller Equity Management Services (P) Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s S.N.L. Agarwala & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. F.B. Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate i/b Law Point for the petitioner. Mr. R. Ashokan for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Joshi and Mr. J. Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for respondent no.5. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2009 P.C.: 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th March 1995 passed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 (Appropriate Authority) under section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 acquiring the property bearing flat no. 45 in “C” Wing of a building known as “Mandhana Manor” at Mahim (for short “the said flat”). 2. By an agreement of sale dated 20th December 1994, the petitioner agreed to purchase the said flat from the respondent no.5. The said flat 2 admeasures 772 sq. ft. and was agreed to be purchased at Rs.22,75,000/-. The petitioner paid the earnest money of Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of agreement of sale and the balance consideration of Rs.7,75,000/- was to be paid immediately after the permission of the Appropriate Authority. On the basis of the discounted value of the consideration and the area of the flat, the Appropriate Authority held that the consideration for the said flat worked out at the rate of Rs.2926/- per sq. ft. 3. In another petition bearing Writ Petition No.1033 of 1995, the petitioner therein had agreed to purchase flat no.56 in the same building admeasuring 772 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.22,75,000/- and the rate of the flat in that case was also worked out at Rs.2926/- per sq. ft. on the basis of the discounted value. 4. This writ petition was heard along with the Writ Petition No.1033 of 1995. By our order passed today, we have quashed and set aside the order of the Appropriate Authority acquiring the property. For the very reasons recorded in our order passed today in Writ Petition No.1033 of 1995, the order impugned in this petition also needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). There shall be no order as to costs. 5. We are informed at the Bar that the consideration which was paid by 3 the Appropriate Authority has been returned to it and the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 confirms the same. In view of this, no order regarding refund of the consideration is required to be passed. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)