9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Yogesh Putney, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, for respondents No.5 to 8. JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 22.3.2007 (Annexure P-16), whereby it was decided to convert the Plot No.5, Link Road, Faridabad, which was taken over by Income Tax Department under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for the use of Centralized Processing Centre. 2. Case set out in the petition is that Sita Wanti Chadha mother of petitioners No.1 to 3 was the owner of the property in dispute, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.1961. Late S. Gurbachan Singh Chadha husband of Sita Wanti Chadha entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property and had right to be heard before an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act was passed, in absence of which, the impugned order was illegal. 4. This contention has been opposed in the reply filed on behalf of Income Tax Department, by submitting that the requirement of giving of hearing is applicable to the transferor in occupation of the property and only if the transferor is not in occupation of the property, any other person in occupation or otherwise interested in the property is entitled to be heard. In the present case, Sita Wanti Chadha was the owner in possession and her husband S. Gurbachan Singh Chadha, who entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights, had died on 1.3.1964. The property was acquired by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chadha had handed over peaceful vacant possession of the property to the Central Government on 28.09.2000. The order under section 269UD(1) dated 31.08.2000 had never been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court or any other authority. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Appropriate Authority is final and conclusive as already submitted in the paras supra. The property vests with Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section269 UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have no locus standi as they are neither transferor nor transferee." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It remains undisputed that after passing an order of acquiring the property on 31.8.2000, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
