9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e states that the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive, but it would be subject to the result of any suit that would be filed by a person who is aggrieved by an order passed under Rule 11. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit insofar as the property in question, is concerned not only against the third respondent herein, but also against any such person who is claiming the said property and any decree to be passed in the said suit would override the order impugned in this writ petition. Therefore the order impugned is kept in abeyance until the petitioner succeeds in establishing its right, title and interest as well as possession over the property in question. In order to enable the petitioner to do so, taking into consideration that there is a serious dispute regarding the site in question, it is also necessary that both the parties would have to maintain status quo insofar as the property is concerned. - W.P.No. 2381 of 2007 (BDA) - - - Dated:- 18-2-2011 - Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J. B.V. Shankaranarayana Rao for the Petitioner. Sanmati Indrakumar and Ms. S.R. Anuradha for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In this writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to consider the objections of the petitioner hereinafter affording an opportunity of hearing and then take appropriate action in the matter. Till such decision was taken, the respondent-authority were directed not to dispose of the property in any manner. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 13.4.2000 which was considered along with the reply filed by respondent No.3 on 14.8.2000. The petitioner also filed additional objections and submitted additional documents and filed written arguments to show that respondent No.3 had no manner of right, title and interest in the C.A. site in question. 3. After hearing the petitioner and the third respondent and after considering the spot inspection, the first respondent overruled the objections filed by the petitioner and passed an order dated 21.11.2006 which is marked as Annexure-L to the writ petition. The said order is in challenge in this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the perusal of the impugned order dated 21 11.2006 would give an impressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d further, the respondent-authorities cannot have any right to possess the said property in the guise of making recovery of the arrears of the income tax by the third respondent. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions of the counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, it becomes clear that there is dispute with regard to the right of the respondent authorities to initiate any action in respect of the C.A. site in question for the purpose of recovery of income tax arrears insofar as the third respondent is concerned. No doubt, the third respondent submits that the C.A. site belongs to him and that he would have no objection if the respondent authorities put the said site for public auction for the purpose of recovery of income tax dues. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said C.A. site cannot be made a subject matter for recovery of income tax dues of respondent No.3 inasmuch as it belongs to the petitioner herein and under the circumstances, when an earlier order was passed by the first respondent, the same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.8753/93 before this court which was disposed of by order dated 16.2.2000 by giving the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppurtenant to the Palace) which was duly accepted for several years by the Income-tax Dept, and Wealth tax assessments were also done on these assets and raising the Wealth-tax dues thereon as well. Therefore, having all these facts and circumstances into consideration I come to the conclusion that as far as the one acre plot of land is concerned, the land remains the property of the Maharaja of Mysore all these years and even the Encumbrance Certificate in Form No. 15 produced by the Bangalore Development Authority also establish that the land transferred to the Chairman, CITB is only 17 acres and 38 guntas. In effect, the Tax Recovery Officer-II, Bangalore rightly identified the land as belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore and was also rightly proposed for public auction to realise the tax dues from the Maharaja of Mysore. I am satisfied with my findings and I am also satisfied with the quality of opportunities given to the BDA Authorities " 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid observations made in the order of the first respondent inasmuch as the claim of the petitioner with regard to its title in the C.A. site in question is nullified and stands declared in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but, subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive." 11. In terms of the above provision, the subject matter of investigation that can be made by the Tax Recovery Officer is, when there is an objection or claim made to the title of property attached or to be auctioned or with regard to the possession of the property being with some other person who claims to be in possession. It is only with regard to the objections that first respondent can give his findings. Therefore, it would imply that the first respondent, is not competent to give findings with regard to the title of the property. In the instant case, the petitioner is not only claiming possession, but also title with regard to the said C.A. site. Under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 11, it is clearly stated that any party who is aggrieved by an order passed, may institute a suit, in a civil court to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subject, to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
