IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9800 9801 OF 2010 Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9901 2010 Union of India & Anr. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Mithlesh Kumari & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.07.29 18:00:10 IST Reason: 1 C.A. Nos.9800 9801/2010 1. These appeals are directed against final judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal No.744 of 1994 whereby Division Bench of High Court dismissed special appeal filed by appellants herein and final judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 in D.B. Civil Review Petition No.80 of 2007 by which review petition arising out of SA 744/94 was also dismissed. 2. In order to appreciate controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out relevant facts infra. 3. appellants are writ petitioners whereas respondents are respondents of writ petition out of which these appeal arise. 2 4. dispute relates to land measuring around 9500 sq. yards/7945 sq. meters along with two Godowns (Nos.13 and 14) and certain other structures standing thereon, which are part of Khasra No. 126 situated in village Durgapur, Tahsil Sanganeer, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "suit land ). 5. One Smt. Mithilesh Kumari [respondent No. 3 herein (since deleted)] and Smt. Krishna Kumari Roongta jointly owned suit land. suit land then became property of firm called M/s Rajasthan Industrial Company, which consisted of several partners along with Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and Smt. Krishna Kumari Roongta. This partnership was later dissolved by dissolution deed dated 31.03.1986 executed by partners. In terms of dissolution deed, two godowns (Nos.13 and 14) together with 1/4 th undivided share in suit land fell to share of Smt. Mithilesh Kumari. 3 6. On 11.11.1993, appellants (prospective buyers) herein entered into agreement with Smt. Mithilesh Kumari for purchase of suit land for total consideration of Rs.99,84,500/ (Rs. 1051/ per sq. yard). appellants paid sum of Rs.40,00,000/ to Smt. Mithilesh Kumari towards advance for purchase of suit land. According to appellants, they were placed in possession of two godowns and other structures standing on suit land. So far as 1/4th land was concerned, appellants were given symbolical possession of suit land. 7. appellants then furnished information about purchase of suit land in accordance with requirements of Section 269UC of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) to appropriate authority in Form No. 37 and submitted copy of agreement dated 11.11.1993. 8. valuation officer of Income Tax Department vide his letter dated 18.01.1994 informed 4 appellants that he would inspect suit land on 21.01.1994. He also sought certain information from appellants in relation to suit land. valuation officer then made inspection of suit land and submitted his report to appropriate authority. 9. appropriate authority, on receipt of report, issued show cause notice on 08.03.1994 to appellants under Section 269 UD (1A) of Act stating therein that apparent sale consideration, as disclosed by appellants in sale agreement, was on lower side for various reasons and that, as matter of fact, value of suit land was much higher than agreed rate specified in agreement. 10. It was mentioned in show cause notice dated 08.03.1994 that Jaipur Development Authority on 07.11.1992 had sold plot of land at 90 Triveni Nagar, Near Durga Pura Railway Station in auction at rate of Rs.1781/ per sq. meter. It was pointed out 5 that if adjustment of 5% is made towards less development whereas 10% is allowed on account of large size of suit land and further 12% is allowed on account of time gap, rate of suit land would work out to Rs.1692/ per sq. meter, i.e., Rs.1,34,39,556/ as against agreed value of Rs.99,84,568/ . It was further pointed out that value determined by appropriate authority at Rs.1,34,39,556/ does not include value of existing two godowns nor it takes into account commercial potential of suit land. 11. It was thus pointed out that after taking into consideration all these aspects, value of suit land would still be higher than what was agreed between parties in agreement and what appropriate authority has determined. show cause notice, therefore, concluded in saying as to why pre emptive purchase order, as envisaged by Section 269 UD (1) of Act, be not made against appellants 6 in relation to suit land. appellants were asked to file reply to show cause notice. 12. appellants (prospective buyers) and vendor (R 3) filed their respective replies to show cause notice. According to them, firstly, comparison of small developed plot of land in Triveni Nagar with suit land for determination of value of suit land was not justified; Second, development of land would need 40% deduction for amenities such as park, roads, electricity, water supply and all other civic amenities; third, market rate of area in question as on 01.04.1991 for first category was fixed at Rs.550/ per sq. meter and for second category, it was fixed at Rs.450/ per sq. meter and if one would add 12% due to time element of two years, it would work out to Rs.690/ per sq. meter; fourth, sub division of suit land would be required to be got approved from JDA and, if it is done, it would leave 30% to 40% of land open for civic amenities; 7 and lastly, one plot measuring 116.3 sq. meters was sold at rate of Rs.861.10 per sq. meter whereas rate of area was fixed by DAC at Rs.600/ per sq. meter and, therefore, in no case, value determined by Department in show cause notice appears to be justified and hence show cause notice be withdrawn by allowing parties to give effect to sale agreement, as agreed, for consideration shown in agreement. 13. appropriate authority, after making inquiries and hearing parties passed order dated 30.03.1994 under Section 269UD (1) of Act. appropriate authority overruled appellants objections and directed compulsory purchase of suit land by Central Government at amount equal to apparent consideration fixed by parties in agreement dated 11.11.1993. authority further directed Income Tax Department to serve copy of order passed for purchase of 8 suit land by Central Government to appellants for their information. order also directed that in terms of Section 269UE (1) of Act, suit land stood vested in Central Government with effect from 30.03.1994. appellants were directed to deliver possession of suit land to Shri RS Sagar, DVO, Income Tax Department, Jaipur who, in turn, wrote to appellants to intimate time and date of handing over possession to Income Tax Department. 14. With these background facts, appellants herein felt aggrieved by pre emptive purchase order dated 30.03.1994 passed by appropriate authority of Income Tax Department and filed writ petition (W.P. No.1899/1994) on 13.04.1994 in High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur questioning therein legality and correctness of order dated 30.03.1994. respondents (Income Tax Department) contested writ petition and defended 9 pre emptive purchase order as being legal and proper on reasoning stated therein. 15. Single Judge, by order dated 14.09.1994, dismissed writ petition and upheld order dated 30.03.1994 as being legal and proper. appellants felt aggrieved and filed appeal (D.B.S.A. No.744/1994) before Division Bench of High Court. vendor (respondent No.3) also filed appeal (SAW No.188/95) against order of Single Judge. Both appeals were disposed of by Division Bench consisted of (Chief Justice S.M. Jha and Justice Mohammad Rafiq) by order dated 31.05.2007. So far as appellants appeal (No.744/1994) is concerned, it was dismissed and so far as vendor s appeal (SAW No.188/1995) is concerned, it was partly allowed with direction that upon department taking over possession of suit land, prospective buyers would be entitled to claim refund of amount paid to vendor together with interest @ 6% p.a., out of 10 maturity amount of FDR (created by department) and remaining amount shall be paid to vendor. 16. appellants felt aggrieved and filed review petition in High Court. Division Bench, which heard review petition, was consisted of (Justice R.M. Lodha (as His Lordship then was and later became CJI) and Justice Rafiq because in meantime, Chief Justice S M Jha, who was member of main judgment had retired). 17. Review Court dismissed review petition by reasoned order dated 24.07.2007 which gave rise to filing of C.A. Nos.9800 9801/2010 in this Court by prospective buyers. So far as C.A. No.9901/2010 is concerned, it is filed by Union of India (Income Tax Department) against that part of order which allowed appeal (SAW 188/1995) filed by vendor wherein directions mentioned above were issued for 11 compliance. This is how these three appeals are clubbed for their analogous hearing. 18. So, question, which arises for consideration in appeals (CA Nos.9800 9801/2010), is whether High Court (Single Judge, Division Bench and Review Bench) was justified in dismissing appellants writ petition, intra court appeal and review petition and thereby was justified in upholding pre emptive order dated 30.03.1994 passed by appropriate authority. 19. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants, in substance, elaborated same submissions, which were urged by appellants in writ petition, writ appeal and review petition before High Court and also added some new arguments, which were not urged before High Court. 20. In reply, learned senior counsel Shri Mukerjee appearing for respondents (Union of India) while supporting impugned order contended that no case 12 has been made out to interfere in reasoning and conclusion arrived at by High Court and, therefore, appeals deserve dismissal. 21. Having heard learned counsel for parties at length and on perusal of record of case, we find no merit in these appeals. 22. At outset, it is apposite to mention that constitutional validity of Chapter XX C inserted in Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 1986 of which Section 269 UE(1) is its part was challenged in this Court in case of C.B Gautam vs Union of India and Others (1993) 1 SCC 78. Chapter XX C deals with compulsory acquisition of property and provides for pre emptive purchase at apparent consideration by Government of any immovable property. 23. then learned Chief Justice M.H.Kania, speaking for constitution bench, upheld constitutional validity of Chapter XX C. 13 24. question involved in these appeals is, therefore, required to be examined keeping in view law laid down in case of C.B Gautam (supra). 25. Coming first to order dated 30.03.1994 (Annexure P 11) of appropriate authority, which was impugned in writ petition, we find from its perusal that it was passed by authority, which is constituted under Section 269 UB of Act. This consisted of three members, who are senior officials of Income Tax Department. order runs into 16 pages and deals with all issues on facts and law raised in show cause notice and its reply. 26. After setting out facts in detail up to Para 3, appropriate authority examined in Paras 4 and 5 location of suit land, its area, and its proximity with main roads, industries and residential colonies situated in nearby areas etc. appropriate authority then found that having regard to 14 topography of suit land, it has potential market value. 27. Thereafter, appropriate authority in Para 7 examined condition of two existing godowns bearing Nos. 13 and 14 and other structures standing on suit land and found as fact that condition of two existing godowns was very good and these godowns were actually being used by appellants for commercial purposes. 28. Considering rates applicable as in case of CPWD structures by cost index and keeping in view relevant factors such as size, location, condition and commercial use of godowns, appropriate authority fixed Rs.42 lakhs as being market value of two godowns. 29. appropriate authority then in same para worked out rate of suit land at Rs.1727.5 per sq. meter and accordingly determined market 15 value of suit land at Rs.1,79,21,532/ as against its declared value of Rs.99,84,500/ in agreement. 30. It is apposite to reproduce Paras 6 and 7 infra: 6. subject property is very close to Tonk Road and on main road leading to Durgapura station and connecting to Tonk Road. On north side of subject property is main Road and on eastern side, there is public road leading to residential colonies which have come up in its neighbourhood. There are residential colonies of Vishnu Puri and Mahavir Nagar across road on north side and residential colonies of Green Nagar and Arjun Nagar on eastern side across road. Immediately after this khasra No.126, there is vegetable oil factory of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. on western side. 7. We have carefully considered facts of case and contentions of ld. representatives of transferor and transferees. As stated earlier, there are existing godowns bearing Nos.13 and 14. Besides, there are offices and guard room etc. Considering rates applicable as in case of CPWD structures as up date by cost index, value of structure including godowns is estimated at Rs.42 lakhs. main godown are of 2929 sq. meters and other structure 171 sq. meter. godowns are lead bearing structure with Tubler trusses and AC sheet roofing having CC flooring in it. Proper electric installation and other services are provided as per norms. It is not correct to say that cost of removal of debris will be more than cost of 16 structure. As matter of fact, even entire iron used has lot of value be godowns are having internal height of 18 feet and raised platform. These were constructed some times in 1980 and are in very good condition. In view of fact that commercial use of property has been allowed by Distt. Magistrate and Jaipur Development Authority, there is no need to demolish them unless property is being exploited fro better gains. declared land value will come to Rs.99,84,700/ minus Rs.42,00,000/ = 57,84,500/ . Therefore, declared land rate works out to Rs.57,84,500/ divided by 7943 sq. meters = Rs.728/ per sq. meter as against prevailing land rate of sale instance property at Rs.1727.5 per sq. mt. land value of subject property on this basis works out to Rs.1727.5 x 7943 =Rs.1,37,21,532/ . If value of depreciated structure of Rs.42 lakhs is added, total value of subject property comes to Rs.1,79,21,532/ as against declared value of Rs.99,84,500/ . 31. appropriate authority then in para 8 considered appellants objections to effect that while determining market value of suit land, deduction of 30% to 40% should have been given and, if it had been given, there would have been no difference of 15% in value of suit land as was 17 required to be made out for invoking powers under Chapter XX C by appropriate authority for pre emptive purchase of suit land. 32. appropriate authority, however, rejected this submission finding no merit therein. appropriate authority then examined issue in light of Rule 11 of Rajasthan Urban Areas (sub division) Rules, 1975 and other relevant facts and came to conclusion that, if several other aspects such as location of suit land and its commercial value is taken into consideration, market value of suit land would be substantially enhanced and would come to Rs.1,46,58,548/ as against apparent consideration of Rs.99,84,500/ fixed in agreement. appropriate authority, therefore, held that in any case, value of suit land was 15% higher than amount of apparent consideration fixed in agreement. 18 33. It is apposite to reproduce paras 8 and 9, which deal with this question: 8. Even though contention of Ld. representatives regarding deduction of 30% to 40% for roads and parks etc. is not acceptable in principle. We may work out value of subject property even on this basis as follows: Saleable area as per rule 11 of Rajasthan Urban Areas(sub division) Rules, 1975 is about 6%. This rule further provides that this may be more if plot size is small. Assuming for arguments sake that 66% of 7,943 which is equal to 5242.38 sq. meters is available for sale, land rate will have to be worked out on basis of sale instance by adjustment of time gap of +12% only. In other words, rate of sale instance will be 1718x1.12 = 1994.72 per sq. meter. It is so because of fact that deduction of 34% contemplates absence of large size as well as less developed . On that basis, land value will be 1995x5242.38=1,04,58,548/ if value of structure of Rs.42 lakhs is further out to Rs.1,46,58,548/ as against declared apparent consideration of Rs.99,84,500/ . 9. While coming to above noted valuation of Rs.1,46,58,548/ adjustment on account of following aspects have not been made. If these were further considered value arrived at will still be higher: i) Deduction of 34% only has been allowed. deduction can be still less if plot is of smaller size. This will 19 enhance saleable land area and land value. ii) Triveni Nagar is in interior from main Tonk Road. development along Tonk Road is certainly very prestigious and valuable. No factor has been added in sale instance on this account. It has been ascertained that sale instances referred to by Ld. representative in his written submissions dated 24.3.94 of Triveni Nagar are not at all comparable for several reasons. Plot No.B 44, Triveni Nagar (copy of sale deed in respect of this property has been filed) is near/on nullah. surroundings are very poor. Besides, this sale instance is not reliable as it has not been examined for pre emptive purchase as alleged apparent consideration is only Rs.1 lakh. Details of another sale instance property at 256 Triveni Nagar have not been made available but this property is again very close to nullah and its surroundings are also very poor. Both of these sale instances cannot be compared with subject property whereas sale instance relied by us can be comparable subject to adjustment of time gap, commercial nature etc. iii) subject property is on main road connecting Durgapura station to Tonk Road. It is very close to Tonk Road. vacant land adjacent to two godowns of subject property falls on side of main road leading to newly developed colonies. In other words, subject property has vacant land area 20 on main station road as well as on other side road leading to colonies. This factor has not been added while coming to valuation; iv) As pointed out earlier, nature of subject property is commercial. value of commercial properties is also about 50% more than residential properties. If this factor is added, present market value of subject property will be substantially enhanced. 34. appropriate authority then in para 10 also examined case keeping in view market rates notified by sub Registrar, Jaipur for purpose of paying stamp duty on sale deed in relation to lands situated in area called "Triveni Nagar" and Durgapura". appropriate authority was, however, of view that rates notified in circular support case of Income Tax Department rather than case of appellants because minimum reserved price notified for commercial use was at Rs.1800/ Per sq. meter. 21 35. appropriate authority then in para 12 dealt with another argument of appellants that adjustment of Rs.10 lakhs payable towards registration charges and Rs.15 lakhs has to be provided for roads, water and electricity supply. appropriate authority rejected this argument because it found that this amount was not part of apparent consideration between parties. 36. It is after recording aforementioned factual findings, appropriate authority came to conclusion that case for pre emptive purchase of suit land as contemplated under Section 269UD(1) is made out against appellants. 37. Now coming to order of writ Court(Single Judge) dated 14.09.1994, we find on its perusal that writ Court rightly observed that it could not act as appellate Court to examine legality and correctness of pre emptive order dated 30.03.1994 passed by appropriate authority under Section 22 269UD(1) of Act but its jurisdiction was confined only to examine as to whether any relevant material is ignored or any erroneous material is considered or whether order of appropriate authority has violated principle of natural justice or any case is made out for infraction of any statutory provision or whether decision taken by appropriate authority for pre emptive purchase is such that no reasonable person could ever take such decision. 38. Despite observing this, writ Court examined all issues of facts arising in case like appellate Court and found no merit therein. 39. When matter came up in intra court appeal at instance of appellants herein before Division Bench, appellate Court also, in detail, examined each factual issue. 40. Division Bench, in its judgment dated 31.05.2007, minutely dealt with contentions urged on behalf of appellant and concurred with 23 reasoning and conclusion of Single Judge and appropriate authority. We consider it apposite to quote relevant extract from judgment with view to show as to how issue in relation to process of valuation of suit land was dealt with by Division Bench. It reads as under: .But on examination of impugned order of preemptive purchase, we find that Appropriate Authority in para 8 of order has categorically noted this argument with reference to Rule 11 of Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub Division, Reconstruction and improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 and noted that said rule provides that saleable are would be about 66% and this may be more if plot size is smaller but assuming that only 66% would have available are for sale, yet out of 7,943 sq. mtrs. area equal to 5242.38 sq. mtrs. Would have been available for sale. Appropriate Authority therefore by this alternative mode worked out rate of land on basis of comparable sale instance i.e. 5242.38 sq. mtrs. by adjustment of time gap of +12% which then would come to Rs. 1994.72 per sq. mtrs. It was noted that this was so because deduction of 34% land contemplates absence of larger size as well as less development. On this basis land value will be Rs. 1995 x 5242.38 = 1,04,58,548/ . Value of constructed godowns of Rs. 42 lacs being added thereto, total value of said property would come to Rs. 1,46,58,548/ as against declared 24 apparent consideration of Rs. 99,84,500/ . We do not find any error in approach taken by Appropriate Authority because deduction of 34% of land for making provision of civic amenities like roads, parks, open spaces, electricity, water, sewerage, drainage, would essentially exclude element of land area being large size agricultural chunk of land, which is alternative argument made by respondents and this would then also exclude element of land being less developed/under developed. In other words, making use of 1/3rd land would in fact make remaining 2/3rd land developed and with sub division of lands into plots of smaller sizes, it would no longer remain large size undeveloped agricultural land. In fact, making provision of all these civic amenities and facilities by using 1/3 rd of land would considerably enhance its saleability and appreciate value of remaining 2/3rd of land. 41. Now coming to order of Review Court, when matter was taken up in review jurisdiction at instance of appellants herein against judgment of appellate Court, Justice Lodha speaking for Bench, again went into each issue on facts and law in detail and found no merit in any of 25 issues. Review Court, therefore, also dismissed review petition by well reasoned order. 42. It is in light of findings recorded by appropriate authority, writ Court, appellate Court and lastly, review Court consistently against appellants, question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out to interfere in impugned order. 43. Though learned counsel for appellants with his usual fairness vehemently reiterated more or less same submissions, which were addressed in High Court and also added some new submissions but we are unable to accept his submissions. In our view, appropriate authority and High Court were right in their respective approach, reasoning and conclusion. This we say for following reasons. 44. It is not in dispute that appropriate authority laid factual foundation in show cause notice to prove value of suit land, which, according to 26 authority, was 15% higher than apparent consideration. It is also not in dispute that categorical finding was recorded by appropriate authority that fair market value of suit land was 15% more than apparent consideration mentioned in agreement of sale by parties. As mentioned above, these findings were examined by writ Court, intra appellate Court and lastly review Court in their respective jurisdiction. They were upheld. 45. In our considered opinion, these findings are based on appreciation of evidence. We do not find these findings to be either arbitrary or illegal or against any statutory provisions and nor they can be regarded as being perverse to extent that no reasonable man could ever reach to such conclusion. We also find that these findings are in conformity with requirements of Section 269 UD of Act and 27 law laid down by Constitution Bench in case of C.B. Gautam (supra). 46. Learned counsel for appellants, however, argued that since there was no reference of two godowns in show cause notice and secondly, appellants were also not served with copy of valuation report of two godowns, impugned orders are rendered bad in law on account of these two infirmities. 47. We find no merit in this submission for three reasons. First, appellants did not raise this objection at any stage of proceedings. We cannot, therefore, entertain this submission at this stage: Second, in any event, no prejudice was caused to appellants because all relevant documents were filed on this issue in writ proceedings. appellants, therefore, had full opportunity to deal with these documents which they also availed of and lastly, this issue was also argued on its merits. It is for all these 28 reasons, we do not find any substance in this submission. 48. Learned counsel for appellants then took us to factual issues, such as location of suit land, comparable sales relied on by Department to prove value of suit land etc. These submissions were urged essentially with view to show that value of suit land mentioned in show cause notice was not real market value and, therefore, order of pre emptive purchase of suit land is bad in law. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, also placed reliance on decisions in Sahib Singh Kalha & Ors. vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 419, Lal Chand vs. Union of India & Anr. , (2009) 15 SCC 769, and Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 246. We have examined submissions keeping in view decisions cited. 29 49. As mentioned above, these issues were gone into at four stages, i.e., first by appropriate authority then by writ Court followed by intra court appeal and lastly by review Court on facts and were rejected finding no merit. In appeal filed under Article 136 of Constitution, we cannot hold de novo inquiry into these issues again. In our view, these findings have been recorded in conformity with requirements of Section 269UD(1) of Act and hence deserve to be upheld. They are accordingly upheld. 50. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in C.A. Nos.9800 9801/2010. appeals are accordingly dismissed. CIVIL APPEAL No.9901 2010 1. This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Division Bench Special Appeal No.188 of 1995 whereby appeal filed by vendor (respondent 30 No.1 in this appeal) was partly allowed with direction to appellants(Income Tax Department) that prospective buyers would be entitled to refund of amount paid to vendor together at rate of 6% p.a. out of maturity amount of aforesaid FDR and remaining amount be paid to vendor. 2. On perusal of record, we find that Single Judge of High Court had passed interim order dated 14.09.1994 directing parties to maintain status quo. He also directed that period of stay order would be excluded for making payment by respondent to seller depending upon outcome of writ petition. This order was later modified on 27.09.1994. While extending stay order, Single Judge, however, clarified that in case, if action impugned is held bad in law, vendor would be entitled for reimbursement of loss occasioned to her. It was, however, submitted before Division Bench of High Court in appeal that 31 concerned authorities had invested amount of apparent sale consideration, i.e., Rs.99,88,500/ in fixed deposit (FDR) and period of FDR was being extended from time to time, pending appeal. 3. Taking into consideration these facts and other relevant circumstances, Division Bench while dismissing appeal filed by prospective buyers, partly allowed appeal filed by vendor and issued following directions: ..but appeal filed by vendor (SAW No. 188/95) is partly allowed with direction that upon department taking over possession of subject property, prospective buyers would be entitled to refund of amount paid to vendor together with interest @ 6% p.a., out of maturity amount of aforementioned FDR and remaining amount shall be paid to vendor. In facts of case, however, we leave parties to bear their own costs. 4. We find that while passing aforesaid order, provisions contained in Section 269UG (4) of Act were not taken into consideration by Division Bench, which inter alia provide as to how issue in 32 relation to amount of consideration is finally required to be dealt with by appropriate authority in case of this nature. 5. Section 269UG (4) of Act reads as under: (4) Where any amount of consideration has been deposited with appropriate authority under this section, appropriate authority may, either of its own motion or on application made by or on behalf of any person interested or claiming to interested in such amount, order same to be invested in such Government or other securities as it may think proper, and may direct interest or other proceeds of any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such manner as will, in its opinion, give parties interested therein same benefits therefrom as they might have had from immovable property in respect whereof such amount has been deposited or as near thereto as may be." 6. We are, therefore, of view that instead of issuing aforementioned impugned directions in relation to disbursement of amount of FDR, High Court should have left matter to be decided by appropriate authority as required under Section 269UG (4) of Act. 33 7. We are, therefore, inclined to allow appeal filed by Union of India to extent that above mentioned directions issued by High Court are hereby set aside and matter is left open for decision to be taken by appropriate authority as required under Section 269UG(4) of Act in accordance with law. 8. appeal is accordingly allowed in part. impugned directions contained in concluding para of impugned order are set aside. J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; July 29, 2019 34 Krishna Kumar Rawat & Ors. v. Union of India & Or