9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer ruler of the princely State of Mysore, as per the inventory approved by the Government of India at the time of accession of the State to Union of India in 1950. There were disputes arising out of the wealth-tax assessments of Sri J.C. Wadiyar pertaining to assessment years 1967-68 to 1976-77. Sri J.C. Wadiyar died on 23-9-1974. His only son, Sri Srikantadattanarasimharaja Wadiyar, had applied to Settlement Commission to have the disputes settled. The Settlement Commission admitted the application and gave a final decision on all the issues and for the purpose of these appeals we need state only facts in relation to Bangalore palace. The said order is dated 29-9-1988. In that, it was held that Bangalore palace was assessable in the hands of Shri J.C. Wadiyar (HUF) for those years. 5. The Settlement Commission fixed norms, for completing the assessments. The departmental valuation officer had estimated the value of Bangalore palace. The Settlement Commission held that the value fixed for 1967-68 should be adopted for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 so that there could be a uniform valuation for a block period of three years. Likewise, the next block of three years comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission in the case of Sri J.C. Wadiyar (Major HUF) --- Rs. 56,56,13,000 for land and Rs. 1,36,73,000 for building. The increase in valuation was on the reason of appreciation in the market value of urban properties though the basic position was the valuation fixed by the Settlement Commission for the assessment year 1976-77. 11. The assessee had taken appeals aggrieved by the valuation fixed by the Wealth-tax Officer. There were also issues other than the valuation of the Bangalore palace. In these appeals we are not concerned with any of them. The appeals for assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 were disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) at the first instance by a common order dated 9-1-1990. His conclusion was as hereunder : "I would therefore reasonably estimate the value of the entire property for assessment year 1979-80 at about 3 crores less than the value for 1980-81 fixed by the departmental valuation officer of Rs. 28.66 crores. The value to be taken for assessment for the block of three years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 would therefore be 25.66 crores less 25% of the value of vacant land which equals Rs. 19.96 crores. This value includes the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermined the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under the provisions of section 8 and further ordered for action to be taken under section 18(1) of the Ceiling Act to publish a notification in the Gazette to acquire the excess land. 18. The heirs of Srikantadattanarasimharaja Wadiyar and other family members interested in Bangalore palace had appealed to the Chairman under section 33 of the Ceiling Act who is the appellate authority for appeals from orders passed by the competent authority. The appellate authority rejected the plea that the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act would not apply. He upheld the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the excess vacant land and the action he proposed for acquiring. It was stated at the Bar that this matter is now before the Karnataka High Court in a writ proceeding. 19. Under the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning, 1961, the Bangalore Development Authority has prepared a Master Plan and a planning report for development of District No. 1 in which the Bangalore palace area is included. As per the proposal made, a major level City Park is proposed in the Bangalore palace area. As per this proposal, no pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24. No person can sell or otherwise alienate any urban land except with the previous permission of the competent authority, vide section 27, Land Ceiling Act. It does not appear that the assessee had applied for permission. Even so, it was unlikely that permission would have been granted as the Competent Authority had proceeded to act under section 8(4) declaring the vacant land in excess of the Ceiling limit. That apart, the holding of the assessee was indisputably far in excess of the Ceiling limit when the relevant Act came into force and as such alienation by way of sale etc. would be null and void unless the person furnished a statement under section 6 and a Notification regarding the excess land held by him had been published --- see section 5(3), Ceiling Act. In the instant case, the competent authority has already declared the excess vacant land and a direction is given to publish a Notification under section 10(1) for acquisition. Perhaps the Notification is not yet out because of the pendency of the writ petition. Be that as it may, there is no escape from the fact that the assessee could not have dealt with the vacant land as he wished. There was embargo on his powers w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
