9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty registered in her name in the year 2006. That itself goes to show that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property in the year 2006 - the petitioner herself in the written representation submitted to respondent No.2, which forms part of record and which was submitted by the petitioner herself, made a mention that by paying the balance sale consideration, she got the property registered in her name on 15.02.2006. Undisputedly, the impugned notice was issued on 30.01.2006. Thus, by the said date, no cause of action accrued to the petitioner. Even subsequently also, there is no cause of action for the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner without any cause of action. Whether the petitioner has made out a case to grant the relief sought for by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT:- The law is well settled that in appropriate cases in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, where there is violation of principles of natural justice or where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 8,29,956/- and as there is necessity on the part of the Commercial Tax Department to take steps for realisation of the said amount as provided under law, the Department made enquiries with regard to the availability of immovable property standing in the name of the defaulter and found that the defaulting party has got 900 square yards of land at Wyra Village in which there exists a pucca R.C. house. On the strength of the material obtained including the Encumbrance Certificate, the property was sought to be attached under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. The entire procedure was taken up as per the norms provided under law. Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the notice issued and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Having given anxious consideration to the above said submission and the materials available on record including the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the points that fall for consideration are:- (1) Whether the petitioner has got the locus standi and whether there exists any cause of action to challenge the notice titled Demand prior to attachment of land dated 30.01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sought to be attached under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act and accordingly, Form-4 was issued, which is a notice prior to attachment. The defaulting party, after accrual of tax dues, had gifted the said property to his son i.e., respondent No.3 herein and therefore, the said deed of gift is void in the light of Section 17-A of the Andhra Pradesh Government Sales Tax, 1957 and further, the property was gifted by the defaulting party to his son only with an intention to defraud the revenue. The property was registered only in February, 2006 in the name of the petitioner, whereas the impugned notice under Form-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act was issued on 30.01.2006. Knowing fully well about the notice of attachment, respondent No.3 registered the property in favour of the petitioner to defraud the revenue. Writ Petition has not been filed bona fide. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, which should be dismissed. 7. In the light of the above stand taken by the contesting respondent, it has to be seen whether there exists any cause of action for the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 8. Cause of action is an equation of bundle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to show that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property in the year 2006. The petitioner conveniently kept silent about the exact date in the year 2006 on which she perfected her title over the property in question. There is no denial of the averments made at para 8 of the counter-affidavit that the property was got registered in the month of February, 2006. Further, the petitioner herself in the written representation submitted to respondent No.2, which forms part of record and which was submitted by the petitioner herself, made a mention that by paying the balance sale consideration, she got the property registered in her name on 15.02.2006. Undisputedly, the impugned notice was issued on 30.01.2006. Thus, by the said date, no cause of action accrued to the petitioner. Even subsequently also, there is no cause of action for the petitioner in view of the discussion that would proceed further on point No.2. Therefore, this point is answered with an observation that the writ petition is filed by the petitioner without any cause of action. 12. Point No.2:- The notice under challenge which is titled Demand prior to attachment of land is issued by the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice the property was attached. The relief sought for is only to declare the action of respondent No.1 in attaching her property as illegal. Indeed, no attachment was effected through the impugned notice. 17. The law is well settled that in appropriate cases in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction where the writ petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, where there is violation of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of any Act is under challenge. (vide the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 107 and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2021) 6 SCC 771. 18. But, in the case on hand, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to restrain a competent authority from performing his duties which he is bound to perform under the statute. As such, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 19. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes that the relief sought for cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
