1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 1993 1.Zeal Real Estate Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.U.Kamdar i/b. Malvi Ranchoddas & Co., for Petitioners. Mr.R. Asokan, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21st October,2008. P.C.:- 1. In this petition, the orders passed under section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act on 24.2.1993 are challenged mainly on the ground that they are contrary to law laid down by this Court in the judgment in the case “Vimal Agarwal Vs. Appropriate 2 authority and others, reported in 210 ITR 16(Bom).” 2. By an agreement Dated 18.2.1991, the petitioners had agreed to purchase from respondent nos.5 to 7 a flat which is the subject matter of the present petition. On filing form 37-I, the Appropriate Authority by an order dated 24.9.1991 ordered purchase of the flat in question. 3. Challenging the said order the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.1678 of 1991. Interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 12.9.1991 as per the minutes signed and tendered by the parties. On 16.12.1992 the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back for passing fresh order on merits. 4. Accordingly, the matter was heard afresh and by the impugned order dated 24.2.1993, the Appropriate Authority has held that this is a fit case for compulsorily purchasing the flat in question. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed. 3 5. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed without determining the fair market value of the flat in question. This Court in the case of Vimal Agarwal (Supra) and several other cases has held that the order passed under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act 1961 without determining the fair market value is bad in law. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. In the present case the full apparent consideration determined under the impugned order has been paid by the Central Government to the vendors and possession of the flat in question has already been taken by the Central Government. Thus, during the pendency of the writ petition the Central Government has been in possession of the flat in question after paying the full apparent consideration. The only interim order passed in the writ petition was that the parties shall maintain status quo. 7. Since the impugned order dated 24.2.1993 is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we set aside 4 the said order. However, the interim order of maintaining status quo is extended for 12 weeks to enable the department to take appropriate action if deemed fit. 8. If the department takes action and passes a fresh order for purchase of the flat in question, in accordance with law within the time stipulated above, then obviously, the matter would be governed by that order. However, if no such order is passed within the stipulated period, then the property shall be dealt within in accordance with the interim order passed on 12.4.1991 in writ petition no.1768 of 1991. If action pursuant to the liberty is taken, the contentions and remedy available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before the appropriate Court/authority. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 5 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)