2018 (1) TMI 674 - HC - Income Tax

Order by appropriate authority for purchase by Central Government of immovable property - abrogation of the order under sub-section (1) of Section 269UD - Held that - Firstly, the petitioner had no title in respect of the property as he is claiming on the basis of an agreement for development executed by the original owners Shri Suhas Deshpande and Others. Whatever title or right he had, is completely lost in the light of execution of the registered conveyance dated 12th December, 2008. The petitioner has no locus to call upon this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this fact, we find that there is no abrogation of the order under sub-section (1) of Section 269UD. The prayers made in this petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner not only on the ground that he has no right, title or interest in respect of the said property, but he has indulged in suppression of facts. Moreover, after termination of the agreement dated 14th December, 1990 the petitioner has never sought enforcement of the said agreement by filing a civil suit. As noted earlier, one of the original owners by notice dated 12th January, 1992 has purported to terminate the agreement dated 14th December, 1990. Hence no case is made out for interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Dispute over property ownership and development rights.
2. Possession of property taken over by Income Tax department.
3. Suit for declaration filed by original owner.
4. Challenge to order dated 24th February, 1994.
5. Petitioner's claim for possession and declaration.
6. Validity of petitioner's claim based on agreements and payments.
7. Transfer of property to third parties.
8. Lack of locus standi and suppression of facts by petitioner.
9. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute over property ownership and development rights between a registered partnership firm and the original owners. The petitioner claimed that an agreement was entered into with the original owners granting development rights, but the agreement was terminated by one of the owners. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into another agreement to transfer the Floor Space Index (FSI) of the property to a third party.

2. The Income Tax department took possession of the property following an order passed under the Income Tax Act in 1994. This led to a legal battle with the original owner filing a suit for declaration of ownership, which was later dismissed. The petitioner sought intervention in the matter, along with a third party claiming to be a transferee from the original agreement.

3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 24th February, 1994, seeking directions for the delivery of possession and declaration of the property. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not claim ownership of the property but relied on agreements and payments made to the original owners, which were disputed through legal notices.

4. The court observed that the petitioner had transferred the property to a third party in 2008, invalidating any claim to ownership or possession. The petitioner's lack of title and the execution of a registered sale deed prior to the petition undermined the basis for seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

5. The court found that the petitioner had no standing to seek relief as they had not enforced the original agreement through a civil suit and failed to disclose crucial facts about the property transfer. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of locus standi and suppression of material facts, with no costs imposed on either party.

← Previous Next →