(1) BY means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 15/12/1986 issued by respondent 3 (appropriate authority) constituted under Section 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exercising powers under Chap- ter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 48 of the Income Tax Rules in regard to the petitioners Flat No. 8-C, 9 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. (2) THE petitioner by an agreement dated 2/06/1986 agreed to pur- chase from M/s Kailash Nath Associates immovable property comprising one residential flat being No. 8-C situate at 9 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs. 11,45,874.00 (Rupees eleven lakhs forty-five thousand eight hundred seventy-four) plus other charges as specified in the agreement being development charges payable to the Land and Development Officer. The appropriate authority constituted under S. 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued an order dated 15/12/1986 for compulsory purchase of the aforesaid property by the central government at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration. (3) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent authority have practised discrimination against the petitioner inasmuch as they have dropped proceedings initiated against the persons who have purchased flats in the same building at Barakhamba Road, although the rate at which the price of the flat has been determined is the same. The petitioner has given details of those flats. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that proceedings against those persons who have purchased flats in the same building were dropped because the apparent consideration was up to Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued instructions that all the cases which were pending and wherein the apparent consideration was up to Rs 10 lakhs, proceedings should be dropped and orders under Sec- tion 269-F(7) be issued. In the case of the petitioner the apparent con- sideration was Rs. 11,45,874.00 and, therefore, it did not fall within the scope of the Boards instructions. In the case of the petitioner the apparent con- sideration was Rs. 11,45,874.00 and, therefore, it did not fall within the scope of the Boards instructions. (4) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no good justification to differentiate the petitioners case with regard to those against whom proceedings have been dropped although both the petitioner and the aforesaid class of persons are placed similarly and constitute one class. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that the petitioner must succeed. (5) IN the result we allow the writ petition and quash the proceedings initiated vide order dated 15/12/1986 issued by respondent 3 constituted under S. 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (6) ALTHOUGH we are allowing the writ petition, but we would like to . make it clear that we are granting relief to the petitioner in the special facts and circumstances of the case and this order shall not be treated as a precedent. There will be no order as to costs.