2019 (2) TMI 1287 - HC - Indian Laws

Auction of the property when the tenanted premises were occupied by the petitioner s late mother at an an advanced age of over 83 years - permit to stay in the said property - Validity of CBDT s instructions dated 19.07.1993 - permission to negotiate and acquire the property bearing address A-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - Held that - This Court did not interfere with the this Court s view that the protection envisaged under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 was not available in respect of the property and that the petitioner (Smt Shiela Sen Gupta) could be evicted by following the procedure under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. However, keeping in view her advanced age, the court permitted the petitioner s mother to continue to occupy the premises for a further period of two years from the date of the order. This order concluded the first round of litigation - There is clearly no dispute that the lease in respect of the tenanted premises had expired and the petitioner s parents were unauthorised occupants of the said property. They were, however, continuing to occupy the tenanted premises under protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, which was no longer applicable with respect to the property being purchased by the appropriate authority. This Court clearly rejected the contention that the CBDT s instruction dated 19.07.1993 was arbitrary or unreasonable. It is also apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid order that this Court did not accept that the petitioner therein had any rights in respect of the said property and expressly clarified that the observations made by the Court would not confer any advantage on the petitioner therein or release her from the undertaking she had furnished. The petitioner s mother expired on 01.01.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pursue the Appropriate Authority for information regarding disposal of the property - The petitioner has filed the present petition as the Income Tax Department continues to use the said property without any immediate timelines to dispose of the same. Insofar as the challenge to the CBDT s Policy (CBDT s Instructions dated 19.07.1993) is concerned, the said issue is no longer res integra. The challenge to the same had been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 07.07.2014, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in its order dated 03.08.2015. The petitioner s endeavour to once again re-litigate the issues is clearly an abuse of the process of law. This Court is of the view that the present petition is an abuse of the process of this Court and such speculative petitions, which are clogging the docket of this Court, ought to be discouraged - the present petition is dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/-.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to CBDT's Instructions dated 19.07.1993.
2. Petitioner's request to negotiate and acquire property or for its immediate auction.
3. Claim for compensation for non-disposal of property.
4. Legal status and rights of the petitioner as a legal heir.
5. Allegations of abuse of the process of law and re-litigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to CBDT's Instructions dated 19.07.1993:
The petitioner impugned the CBDT's instructions dated 19.07.1993, which prohibited the Income Tax Department from entering into direct negotiations with individuals for the disposal of property acquired by it. This issue had been previously adjudicated by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.(C) 4120/2014, which upheld the instructions, stating that they reflected a policy decision of the Central Government that could not be judicially reviewed except on very narrow grounds of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The Supreme Court also upheld this decision in its order dated 03.08.2015, thus concluding that the challenge to the CBDT's instructions was no longer res integra.

2. Petitioner's Request to Negotiate and Acquire Property or for its Immediate Auction:
The petitioner sought directions to permit negotiation and acquisition of the property or, alternatively, for its immediate auction. The court noted that the petitioner’s mother had previously attempted to challenge the same instructions and had been unsuccessful. The Supreme Court had clarified that the petitioner could participate in the auction if the property were to be auctioned but did not confer any additional rights to insist on the auction. The court found that there was no merit in the petitioner's request as the issue had already been decided.

3. Claim for Compensation for Non-disposal of Property:
The petitioner claimed compensation at the rate of ?1.5 lacs per month from 01.01.2016 until the final disposal of the property by public auction. The court did not find any legal basis for this claim, as the petitioner was not entitled to any rights or compensation merely based on the observations made by the Supreme Court regarding participation in an auction.

4. Legal Status and Rights of the Petitioner as a Legal Heir:
The petitioner assumed that as a legal heir of Smt. Shiela Sen Gupta, they had acquired certain rights based on the Supreme Court's observations. The court clarified that the Supreme Court's observation only allowed participation in an auction if held and did not confer any substantive rights to insist on the auction or acquire the property directly. Thus, the petitioner's assumption was deemed incorrect.

5. Allegations of Abuse of the Process of Law and Re-litigation:
The court observed that the petitioner was re-litigating issues that had already been decided against them in previous rounds of litigation. Citing the Supreme Court’s stance in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, the court emphasized that re-litigation constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is contrary to justice and public policy. The court concluded that the present petition was speculative and an abuse of the legal process, warranting dismissal with costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that it was an abuse of the process of law and speculative in nature. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of ?50,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. The application filed by the petitioner was also disposed of.

← Previous Next →