HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Krishna Kumar Rawat and others v. Union of India and others
Civil Appeal Nos. 9800-9801 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 9901 of 2010
[2019] 10 SCR 333 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: sections 269UC, 269UD(1), 269UD(1A), 269UE(1) and 269UG(4)
Holding and result. The pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD was upheld because the valuation findings were evidence-based and met the statutory test. The buyers’ appeals failed; the Union appeal was partly allowed because disbursement had to be left to the appropriate authority under section 269UG(4).
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. · Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. · Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
01 · Facts of the case
Prospective buyers agreed to buy land and godowns in Jaipur for Rs.99,84,500 and filed Form 37-I. The appropriate authority found that fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by at least 15 percent and ordered pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C. The High Court upheld the purchase but issued directions concerning the fixed-deposit consideration.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court confined review of the valuation decision to legality, relevant material, natural justice, statutory compliance and perversity. The authority had laid a factual foundation in its notice, considered objections and recorded a valuation finding consistent with section 269UD and C.B. Gautam. Separately, section 269UG(4) required the appropriate authority—not the High Court—to decide disbursement of the purchase consideration.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The valuation findings were neither arbitrary, illegal nor perverse and the section 269UD purchase stood. The High Court’s disbursement directions were replaced by a direction to the appropriate authority to deal with the amount under section 269UG(4).
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Civil Appeal Nos. 9800-9801 of 2010 were dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 9901 of 2010 was partly allowed to the limited extent of leaving disbursement to the appropriate authority.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a historical Chapter XX-C file, separate the validity of the pre-emptive purchase from the statutory handling of consideration. Preserve the show-cause valuation basis, objections and authority findings; do not treat the High Court as the disbursement authority where section 269UG(4) applies.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 20-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 20-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.