9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed. Surendra Dubey filed an objection to the effect that the plots in question did not belong to Haridwar Dubey individually and the land belongs to the joint Hindu family consisting of Haridwar Dubey and Surendra Dubey. In spite of the petitioner's objection, the land was sold on March 25, 1969, and was purchased for Rs. 10,000 by Jit Narain Dubey, who is respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. Surendra Dubey has filed this writ petition challenging the attachment and sale proceedings. The basis of the petition is that the land in question does not belong to Haridwar Dubey, the defaulter. It is joint family property. This position is disputed by the respondents. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector, Gorakhpur, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o file such an objection and the authorities were aware of the objection filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit filed by Udai Bhan Singh the detailed procedure followed by the authorities has been explained. Firstly, there was a report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bansgaon. It was suggested that objection might be filed within 30 days from the date of sale. The sale was actually held on March 25, 1969. A number of authorities appear to have participated in these proceedings. Mr. R. K. Gulati, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional District Magistrate were not competent to deal with the matter. No such point has been raised in the writ petition. It will be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 11. Sub-rule (6) of rule 11 states: "Where a claim or an objection is preferred, 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." This provision makes it clear that it is open to the petitioner to establish his title before the civil court. The petitioner contended that omission to investigate the objection under rule 11 entitled the petitioner to a relief under article 226. Reliance is placed upon Shakooran Bibi v. Income-tax Officer, Meerut. In that case the wife of the defaulter filed an objection claiming that the attached prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
