9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was transferred to the alleged Benamidar nor the impugned property was held by the alleged Benamidar. Even if we accept that there were cash infusions into the bank accounts of the alleged Benamidar, there is no evidence on record as to show that such infusions were made by the Beneficial Owner. We find that neither the property which has been provisionally attached is Benami nor the transaction which has occurred with respect to the impugned property is Benami. We therefore set aside the Impugned Order. - SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. R V Yogesh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Ashish Tandon, Adv. Ms. Sheya Shandilya, Adv. For the Appellant : Ms. Gunjan Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Ashish Tandon, Adv. Ms. Sheya Shandilya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra, Adv. For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani Taneja, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Ashish Tandon, Adv. Ms. Sheya Shandilya, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra, Adv. ORDER This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-PBPT-855/HYD/2019, FPA-PBPT-897/HYD/2019 and FPA-PBPT-901/HYD/2019 filed under Section 46( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sale with M/s North Star Homes to purchase the impugned property worth Rs.2,35,00,000/-. They argued that at all times the beneficial interest in the impugned property only vested with M/s North Star Homes and the Respondent Department was fully cognizant of this fact. The beneficial interest in the impugned property will pass on to M/s Padmanabha Marktech Pvt. Ltd. only after it makes full payment and the sale deed is executed and registered in its name. 4. Ld. Counsels for the Appellants have contended that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has wrongly confirmed the Provisional Attachment of the impugned property. The alleged Benamidar is not the owner of the said property u/s 26(3) of PBPTA. Moreover, Agreement to Sale is merely an executor contract. The title of the property and the possession is with M/s North Star Homes. Shri Rachakonda contended that the provisions of the PBPTA are not applicable to the impugned property as there was only contemplation to purchase/invest in the same and that too before the enactment of amendment to the Benami Act which was made enforceable only from 1st November, 2016. It was also contended that the Respondent BPU, Hyderabad failed to establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manabha Marktech Pvt. Ltd. is a company which had become almost dysfunctional. Smt. Savitramma and Shri P Karunakar were appointed at the instance of Shri Rachkonda Srinivasa Rao, as Managing Director and Director respectively of the Company. The Company had no sources to make any investment. Shri P. Karunakar had given statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. that Smt. Savitramma had given 100 blank signed cheques of the Company‟s bank account to Shri R. Kanishka, who is the Son of Rachkonda Srinivasa Rao, which in turn were used to pay Rs.1,94,00,000/- in 31 cheques to M/s North Star Homes. Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has clearly brought on record the background and the circumstances in which the whole transaction was made by Sri Rachakonda Srinivas Rao, who was a government servant. Shri Rao introduced his unaccounted/ill gotten money and parked the same in the name of M/s Padmanabha Marktech Pvt. Ltd. by giving it a color of genuine legitimate investment circumventing the law. In view of the above, Ld. Adjudicating Authority correctly confirmed the Provisional Attachment of the impugned property. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent prayed for dismissal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conveyed is of the value of more than Rs 100. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour of Pishorrilal (the proposed transferee) the title of the suit land continued to vest in Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (original plaintiff) and remain in his ownership. This point was examined in detail by this Court in State of U.P. v. District Judge [(1997) 1 SCC 496] and it was held thus : (SCC pp. 499-500, para 7) 7. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions we find that the High Court with respect had patently erred in taking the view that because of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act the proposed transferees of the land had acquired an interest in the lands which would result in exclusion of these lands from the computation of the holding of the tenure-holder transferor on the appointed day. It is obvious that an agreement to sell creates no interest in land. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the property in the land gets conveyed only by registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that the lands sought to be covered were having value of more than Rs 100. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that an agreement of sale does not convey any right, title or interest. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: - 6. The further contention is that there was an agreement of sale by Devi Prasad with the appellant in the year 1969 and that sale deed was executed in 1974, it dates back to the date of agreement and, therefore, the Act is inapplicable. We find no force in the contention. An agreement of sale does not convey any right, title or interest. It would create only an enforceable right in a court of law and parties could act thereon. The right, title and interest in the land of Devi Prasad stood extinguished only on execution and registration of the sale deed and admittedly it was done in 1974. Therefore, the sale deeds are within the prohibited period. 11. We note that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.2.35 Crores for the impugned property only Rs.1.94 Crores was paid by the alleged Benamidar. The interested party M/s North Star Homes has also maintained that the Benamidar has not acquired any rights, interest and title to the impugned property. Therefore M/s North Star Homes continue to remain owner and in possession of the impugned property. In view of this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
