Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1923 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTRight of the purchaser of property on power of attorney over legal heirs for receiving deposits made against suit property - The property was acquired by the income tax department in 1978 u/s 269-I and 269-K - the petitioners' contention that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Mathew Thomas [1999 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT], the property never having vested in the Income Tax Department no compensation could be paid by that Department and hence it would continue to be owned by them (petitioners) Held that:- argument has to be rejected firstly in view of the fact that the petitioners' suit seeking a declaration that they are owners-in-possession of the suit property and that the respondent department be injuncted from interfering in their possession thereof, has been dismissed, with, to again repeat, the said judgement dated September 16, 2008, passed in RSA No.1538 of 2005, having become final, very obviously this Court cannot sit upon that judgment to hold to the contrary. The case file of the said appeal having been called for, it is seen that, in fact, the contention raised by the petitioners presently with regard to Chapter XXA having been made inapplicable to any transfer of immovable property made after September 30, 1986, has been duly dealt with in that judgment, noticing Section 269RR of the Act, eventually therefore holding that since the property was acquired well prior to 1986 and the acquisition having become final by way of dismissal of the appeal and the writ petition filed against such acquisition, the amendment made, w.e.f. September 30, 1986, would not affect such proceedings of acquisition. Hence, simply because the judgment in Mathews' case was not brought to the notice of the Court in those proceedings, that would not change the fact that the petitioners contended right to the property was ousted in that civil suit, which obviously cannot been reopened by this Court. Consequently, the property having been acquired in terms of Section 269F(6) of the Act, from Manak Chand Khanna in the year 1978, in my opinion the learned Additional District Judge has correctly held in the impugned order that it would only be the legal heirs of Manak Chand Khanna, who would be entitled to payment of compensation, upon them filing any application before that Court. The petition dismissed.
|