9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the acquisition of property. 2. Barred by time acquisition proceedings. 3. Lack of statutory notice leading to vitiation of proceedings. 4. Interpretation of Section 269D(1) of the Act regarding the initiation of acquisition proceedings. 5. Jurisdictional competence of the Competent Authority. 6. Compliance with statutory timelines for initiating acquisition proceedings. 7. Effect of publication date of notice in the Gazette on the validity of proceedings. 8. Application of precedent from U. S. Awasthi v. IAC [1977] 107 ITR 796. 9. Quashing of acquisition proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction. 10. Refund of amounts deposited during the pendency of the writ petition. The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad addressed a petition challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for a property purchased and registered in March 1974. The petitioner argued that the acquisition proceedings were time-barred and lacked statutory notice, rendering them invalid. The Competent Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition through a Gazette notice in December 1974, following the registration of the sale deed. However, the petitioner contended that the Gazette notice was made available to the public after the statutory timeline had expired. The court considered Section 269D(1) of the Act, which sets a timeline for initiating acquisition proceedings after property registration. The court referenced a previous case, U. S. Awasthi v. IAC, where it was held that the initiation of proceedings is complete only when the Gazette notice is available to the public. Based on this precedent, the court concluded that the acquisition proceedings in the present case were initiated beyond the statutory period, lacking jurisdiction. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated based on the Gazette notice published in December 1974. Additionally, during the petition's pendency, the petitioner sought an interim order to prevent the respondents from taking possession of the property. The court directed the petitioner to make monthly payments, which would be refunded if the petition succeeded. As the petition succeeded, the court ordered the refund of all amounts deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner was also awarded costs for the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with statutory timelines for initiating acquisition proceedings and the legal significance of the publication date of notices in the Gazette on the validity of such proceedings.
|
