9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s situated in a busy commercial area of Allahabad and it has a number of tenements which are being used for commercial purposes. Some time in the year 1947, the petitioner took on lease one such tenement on the ground floor (hereinafter indicated as the shop) from its owner, Smt. Janak Kishori Devi, and has thereafter been carrying on the business of Chemists and Druggists therein under the name and style of Esray Company. On 5th April, 1977, Smt. Jana Kishori Devi executed a sale deed and sold the said building to respondents No. 4 to 6 of this writ petition. Being of opinion that the said property had been sold by Smt. Janaki Kishori Devi to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for an apparent consideration which was less than its fair market value and that the consideration in the sale deed had not been truly stated, the IAC of Income-tax, who was the Competent Authority, initiated proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, for acquisition of the said property by publishing a notice under s. 269D of the Act, in the Gazette of India, dated 11th January, 1975, Part III, sec. 1, at page 306. In due course the Competent Authority passed the Order dated 16th January, 1976, under s. 269F(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection, be could not, after the order for acquisition had become final, approach this court for any relief. They have further claimed that the object of the notice dated 19th May, 1979, issued to the petitioner under s. 269-1(1), I.T. Act, was not to physically evict the petitioner from the shop. The said notice was aimed at obtaining from the petitioner surrender or delivery of possession by his attorning to the Central Government in place of previous owner by accepting such terms and conditions as the Central Government may decide. Apart from the petitioner, all other tenants of House No. 30, Chowk, Allahabad, have executed agreements attorning to the Central Government in place of the previous owner. The respondents, therefore, claimed that, in the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The controversy between the parties in this, case centres round the question as to whether the respondents have, while acquiring the building under Chap. XX-A, I.T. Act, observed the procedure laid down therein and whether in case it is found that the procedure followed by the respondents is defective as not being strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficial Gazette and that the same has also been affixed and proclaimed in the locality as required by s. 269D(2)(b) of the Act as also the fact that such persons have become aware of the intended acquisition proceedings, their right to file an objection does not come to an end till such time as after service of notices under s. 269D(2)(a) upon them a period of 30 days has expired. So far as the persons falling in the fourth category mentioned above are concerned, they can, whether or not notice as required by s. 269D(2) was served upon them, file their objections only within 45 days of the date of publication of the notice under s. 269D(1) published in the Official Gazette. Section 269F(1) obliges the competent authority to fix a date and place of hearing of the objections made under s. 269E against the proposed acquisition and to give notice thereof to every person, who has made such objection. In the context the section clearly implies that no such date of hearing can be fixed by the Competent Authority till such time as the time allowed for filing objections as specified in s. 269E has not expired. Sub-s. (6) of this section enables the Competent Authority to, after hearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the acquisition proceedings merely because at some, stage his son had become aware thereof. Of course, the fact that the son of the petitioner had knowledge of the intended acquisition proceedings could, in conjunction with some other material which tended to show the petitioner was aware of the acquisition proceedings, be considered to be relevant in this regard. Apart from this, what s. 269(2)(a) required is that the notice under s. 269D(1) is to be served upon the persons entitled to receive the same. We have perused the notice as published in Government of India Gazette, relevant portion whereof reads thus: " Now, therefore, in pursuance of s. 269C, I hereby initiate proceedings for acquisition of the aforesaid property by issue of this notice under sub-s. (1) of s. 269D I.T. Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), to the following persons, namely, (1) Smt. Janak Kishori Devi (Transferor); (2) Sri Jagdish Prasad and others (Transferees). Objections, if any, to the acquisition of the said property may be made in writing to the undersigned:-(a) by any of the aforesaid persons within 45 days of the publication of the notice or a period of 30 days from the service of the notice on the respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etent Authority knows to be interested in the property. Section 269D(2)(a) is a mandatory provision and any proceeding in violation of the same is void." In the case of CIT v. Prem Narain Tandon a Division Bench of this court has observed thus: " The provisions of Chap. XXII-A, I.T. Act, affect the property right of a citizen. These provisions are stringent which result in appropriation of property by the State. The authorities administering these laws should not lightly invoke these provisions. When proceedings for acquisition of property of a citizen are initiated by the Competent Authority the provisions of the Act should be strictly followed. " In this view of the matter, it is clear that the order dated 16th January, 1976, passed by the Competent Authority for acquisition of the property in exercise of powers under s. 269F(6), I.T. Act, as also the notice dated 19th May, 1979, issued by it under s. 269-1(1), I.T. Act, cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed. However, as no defect in the publication of the notice of the intended acquisition of the property in the Official Gazette under s. 269D(1), I.T. Act, has been pointed out, will be open to the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
