http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6052  of  1998

PETITIONER: APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MS. SHASHI SEHGAL & ORS..

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU, J. : L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Property bearing No.  N-84, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi was  agreed to be sold by one K.S.R.  Chari and Smt.   Chari who  were  permanently residing at Bangalore to Ms.   Shashi Sehgal.   It  was disclosed in the agreement that  the  said Chari  having  retired  from the Government service  as  the Secretary  to the Government of India wanted to settle  down at  Bangalore  after  selling out the property  and  he  had entered  into  an  agreement  to   purchase  a  property  at Bangalore.   On  an  application  filed in  Form  37-I,  the Appropriate Authority proceeded to compare the said property with  properties  comprised in S-237, Greater Kailash I  and E-547,  Greater  Kailash II.  According to  the  Appropriate Authority  the fair market value with reference to the first property was worked out at Rs.35 lakhs and with reference to the other property at Rs.  42 lakhs.  The property comprised in  N-84,  Greater  Kailash I has three  sides  open  though measuring  1532 sq.  ft.  and a lot of space has been wasted due  to  load bearing walls while the property comprised  in S-237,  Greater  Kailash  I  has  two  sides  open  and  the construction  is far superior with servant quarters and  car parking  and property comprised in E-547, Greater Kailash II is  altogether in a different locality.  The party wanted  a reference to be made to sale of property comprised in E-280, Greater  Kailash  I but that was altogether ignored  by  the Appropriate Authority.

   Whatever be the value of the property the same was being sold  under certain special circumstances which could not be ignored  by  the  Appropriate Authority.  While one  of  the learned Judges of the High Court felt that show cause notice is  bad in law, the other learned Judge felt that the object underlying Chapter XX-C had not been complied with.  Whether property had sufficient parking space or not, and adjustment had  been  given  to  the parking  space  and  that  servant quarters  at  the terrace were authorised or not, had  still their  own value and these aspects ought to have taken  into consideration  by the Appropriate Authority in comparing the two  properties.  When relevant factors had been ignored  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the  Appropriate  Authority,  necessarily we find  the  view taken  by  the High Court in holding that the order  of  the Appropriate Authority is vitiated is correct.

   The  appeal  is, therefore, dismissed.  No order  as  to costs.