JUDGMENT Rajendra Babu, J.-The property comprised in No. G-4 (Old No. C-62), Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a plot measuring about 800 sq. yards was agreed to be sold pursuant to an agreement dated July 1, 1993 for a sale consideration of Rs. 79 lakhs. The property consists of two floors - ground and the first - and is in occupation of the tenants. The agreement provided for symbolic delivery of the possession while it was open to the purchaser to make use of the portion over the roof on the first floor. A application in Form 37(I) was filed Subject property 1st sale instance Sale agreement Apparent sale Declared land rate works Sale deed dated 9.7.93 consideration out at Rs. 21,821 per sq. 25.6.91, 24 months mt. Value to be increased earlier sale agreement at 1% per month for 24 months 24% Has no basement 10% to be Thus value to be added is deducted 14% (24%-10%) if 14% is added the land rate of subject property would come to Rs. 21,821 x 14% Rs. 24,875 or 25,000 per sq. mt. Value of land Rs. 1.30 crores Depreciated value of the structure Rs. 9,35,758 Total value of the subject property Rs. 1,39,33,758 The property is Depreciated value for 6 tenanted years at 8% is calculated Rs. 87,78,267 at : (Rs. 1,39,33,758 x. 63) (a) Thus the value of the subject property is Rs. 87,78,267 (b) To this rent for 6 years is added Rs. 1,42,092 Has barsati Has no barsati potential of the potential area is 149.90 Rs. 37,27,500 sq. mts (c) This is to be added. The value of the subject property is fixed at Rs. 1,26,42,859 or Rs. 1,26,45,000 This is 58% more than the apparent consideration of the subject property (Rs. 79,99,390) Subject property D-18 (known as 2nd sale instance 1-15), Maharani Bagh Sale agreement Sale deed dated 1.12.1992 Rs. 1.11 crores Adjusted declared land rate works out at Rs. 29,587 per sq. mt. Value to be increased at 1% per month 7 months earlier to sale agreement For 7 months + 7% FAR (not so Far (140-100) - 28% much as the 2nd instance) Side open (not                  - 5% available/which is available in 2nd instance) Has no basement - 10 potential + 7% - 43%                  - 36% Declared land rate deducting - 36% 29,587 x .64 =Rs. 18,950 per sq. mt. 18,950 per sq. mt. Value of the land of the subject property 52 x 18,950 Rs. 98,54,000 Depreciated value of the 9,33,758 structure Rs. 1,07,87,758 Tenanted Depreciated value at the Rs. 67,96,287 rate of 8% (Rs. 1,07,87,758 x. 63) Rental increase for 6 Rs. 1,42,092,00 years = Rs. 28,21,655 Barsati potential 148.90 sq. mt. x Total value of the subject Rs. 97,60,034 18,950 property 22% higher than to AC Subject property 3rd sale instance N-62, Panchsheel Park Sale agreement 9.7.1993 800 sq.yds. having FAR Land rate declared works 29.4.1993 out at Rs. 28,455 per sale agreement consi- sq. mt. deration Rs. 1,56,00,000 If the rate of increase of Rs. 35,02,220 1% per month 4 months + 4% time gap Rs. 1,91,02,220 No open area Falling open area -5% No basement Basement available potential 10% +4% -15% = -11% The land rate works out at Rs. 25,333 (28,455 x.89) Land rate of subject property (ground floor, 1st floor) 520 sq. mts. = 25,333 x 520   = Rs. 131,73,160 = 1,31,73,160.00 Depreciated value of the structure = 9,33,758.00 Rs. 1,41,06,918.00 The Appropriate Authority added one per cent every month. The basement and barsati potential was also taken into account. The Appropriate Authority took into account the subject property was tenanted and made certain calculations such as 6 years deferred value at 8 per cent and 6 years rent was added to the value arrived at by the above process. 2. The High Court disapproved this process of arriving at the figures and that the apparent consideration fell short of the fair market value by more than 15 per cent and, therefore, the High Court held that the action is incorrect. 3. The Department contends that the learned Judges of the High Court could not have sit on judgment over the manner of calculations made by the Appropriate Authority. If any of the factors set out therein had been ignored in the matter of arrival of fair market value, the same would have affected the consideration made by the Appropriate Authority. There are several methods of arriving at fair market value such as comparative sale method or the capitalisation of the rent, i.e., yield method or any other appropriate method. There are several methods of arriving at fair market value such as comparative sale method or the capitalisation of the rent, i.e., yield method or any other appropriate method. But when the Appropriate Authority adopted one or the other method and in that process there is no inherent error or the factors taken note of by the Appropriate Authority being relevant, it is submitted that it is not open to the High Court to have interfered with such a matter. This Court in Sudha Patil s case (supra) has stated that when the Appropriate Authority comes to the conclusion one way or the other after giving due opportunity to the parties concerned and there has been under-valuation on that basis by more than 15 per cent of the fair market value, the Appropriate Authority had jurisdiction to interfere with the same. 4. The High Court took the view that there is nothing on record to suggest as to what were the special reasons for making a purchase order in respect of wholly tenanted property. Even assuming that there was some justification for the authority to initiate proceedings for the pre-emptive purchase of the property under Chapter XX-C of the Act, the method of valuation of the fair market value had to be just and reasonable. The authority has compared the values of incomparable properties. While considering comparable instances, the instances of tenanted properties had to be taken into consideration and not vacant properties by discounting without any factual or legal basis. While the agreement in relation to property at Maharani Bagh had been entered into in June 1991, the agreement for the property in question was entered into on July 1, 1993. Therefore, there is no basis for adding 24% on the hypothetical basis that there would be increase of 1 per cent every month. 5. In respect of tenancy, the plea taken before the High Court is that the purchaser had mutual terms to get the property vacated from the tenant. While the ground floor tenancy was from the year 1979 and the first floor tenancy was from the year 1967, there is hardly any justification to presume that the tenants would vacate in 5/6 years. While the ground floor tenancy was from the year 1979 and the first floor tenancy was from the year 1967, there is hardly any justification to presume that the tenants would vacate in 5/6 years. The sale instance in respect of property comprises in Section 39-A, Panchsheel Park, which was substantially tenanted without any justification, was not taken into consideration, though rent capitalisation method was applied in that case. Why in respect of one tenanted property rent capitalisation method was applied to work out the fair market value and in the other case land and building method was applied is not clear. It is on this basis the High Court allowed the writ petition before it. 6. It is no doubt true that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited, but that is only in the nature of a judicial review of the proceedings and not by way of appeal or revision where the scope of interference is much wider. In cases of the present nature where several methods are available for finding out the value of the property and if one or the other method is adopted by the Department and that may be reasonable, it may not call for any interference. However, if there are loopholes or lacunae in the process of reasoning adopted by that authority in reaching the conclusion as in the present case that the tenanted property would be vacated soon or that the property is close to the vicinity of the situation of the subject property if compared, adopting different methods of valuation, then the parties who appear before the authorities will definitely have a reason to have a heart burn. If one method of valuation is adopted and benefit is given to one party and why that method is not adopted in the other case to reach the conclusion the other way is not clear and in our opinion it is unjustifiable. If in this background the High Court examined the matter and arrived at a conclusion one way or the other, we do not think it is necessary for us to interfere with that finding in a proceeding arising under Article 136 of the Constitution. 7. Hence these appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs. (N.K.R.) Appeals dismissed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Appropriate Authority & Anr. 7. Hence these appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs. (N.K.R.) Appeals dismissed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Appropriate Authority & Anr. v. Kailash Suneja & Anr., 2001(6) Supreme 428 : 2001 (6) JT 252 : 2001 (251) ITR 1 : 2001 (169) CTR 401 : 2001 (118) Taxman 295 : (2001) 6 SCC 563 : 2001 Tax. LR 755 : AIR 2001 SC 281 00072