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

PETITIONER: SRI NANDLAL TEJMAL KOTHARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The controversy raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of  this Court  in C.B.  Gautam vs.  Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 78] wherein it was held that:      "31. The recording of reasons which      lead to the passing of the order is      basically intended  to serve a two-      fold purpose:      (1)  that the  "party aggrieved" in           the proceeding before (sic the           appropriate         authority)           acquires  knowledge   of   the           reasons and  in  a  proceeding           before the  High Court  or the           Supreme Court  (since there is           no   right    of   appeal   or           revision),    it     has    an           opportunity   to   demonstrate           that   the    reasons    which           persuaded  the   authority  to           pass an  order adverse  to his           interest    were    erroneous,           irrational or irrelevant, and      (2)  that the  obligation to record           reasons and convey the same to           the party  concerned  operates           as   a    deterrent    against           possible arbitrary  action  by           the  quasi-judicial   or   the           executive  authority  invested           with judicial power.      42. We  realise that  if order  for      compulsory purchase of the property      is  made  hereafter  the  intending      vendor will  suffer to  some extent      by reason  of the fact that he will      get  the  purchase  amount  several      years after  the time he would have      got it  had the impugned order been      held to  be valid. But on the other

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

    hand,  however,   he   would   have      retained  the   possession  of  the      property in  question. Taking  into      account these  factors  and  taking      note of the fact that the immovable      properties in  urban areas last few      years,  we   direct  that  in  case      Central Government shall pay to the      intending seller  the amount of the      apparent     consideration     plus      interest at  9 per  cent per  annum      from the  date the  impugned  order      was made.      50.  We,  accordingly,  clarify  by      this supplemental  direction to  be      read as  part of  the judgment that      in respect  of case other than that      of petitioner  - C.B.  Gautam,  the      period of two months referred to in      Section 269-UD(1) shall be reckoned      with  reference   to  the  date  of      disposal of  each of  such  pending      matters either before this Court or      before the  High Courts as the case      may be.  Where, however,  the  stay      orders inhibiting  the  authorities      from taking further proceedings are      vacated, the  period referred to in      the said Section 269-UD(1) shall be      reckoned with reference to the date      of  such   vacating  of   the  stay      orders.  This   clarification   and      further    direction    shall    be      supplemental to  and be  treated as      parts of the main judgment."      Following the  above ratio, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.