9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough two sale deeds dated April 17, 1973, was acquired by the Competent Authority under the provisions of s. 269F(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The factum and validity of this acquisition is not in dispute. The order of acquisition was passed on May 20, 1976. In pursuance of this order, the Competent Authority issued a notice on December 1, 1977 (annex. P-4 ), requiring the petitioners to surrender th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their letter dated August 24, 1978 (annex. P-7), informed the Competent Authority that in spite of their various requests it had failed to take possession of the property and to safeguard the interests of the authorities, they, as per necessity, had to engage a chowkidar for the upkeep and maintenance of the property and that the authority concerned would be liable to pay them interest on the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o entitled to be paid the cost of improvements amounting to Rs. 28,676 effected during the period April 17, 1973, to May 20, 1976, that is, the date of purchase of the property in question and the acquisition of the same. On behalf of the respondent-authorities, it is pleaded that the first relief mentioned above cannot possibly be granted to the petitioners in view of the provisions of the I.T. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unwarranted. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, stresses with some amount of vehemence that on account of the omissions and commissions of the respondent authorities, the petitioners had to suffer a heavy loss in stopping their business in view of the order of acquisition dated May 20, 1976. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners could not stop their business overnight o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
