DHANUBEN KALANBHAI MANCHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-2

SCA/7345/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around the challenge to the cancellation of Mutation Entry No.8058 concerning lands in Village Sari, Taluka Umargam, previously owned by Kalyanbhai Morarbhai. After Kalyanbhai's death, his heirs were recorded as owners, but the Deputy Collector later discovered that the land was encumbered and owned by the Income-tax Department, leading to the cancellation of the mutation entry. The petitioners contested this cancellation, but both the Collector and the revisional authority upheld the cancellation, leading to this petition in the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753593 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANAN MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: JATIN YADAV; SUMIT PRAJAPATI
• Keywords: Income Tax Department; Mutation entry; Revision application; Land Encumbrance; Heirship Mutation

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/7345/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7345 of 2018 ========================================================== DHANUBEN KALANBHAI MANCHI Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-2 ========================================================== Appearance: MR JATIN V YADAV(8946) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4 SUMIT K PRAJAPATI(8867) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP (99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 11/06/2018 ORAL ORDER Heard learned advocate Mr.Jatin Yadav for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent – State and its authorities appearing upon service of copy of the petition in advance. 2. The challenge is sought to be lodged by the petitioners against order dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, passed in Revision Application No.14 of 2014, whereby the said revisional authority dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order of Collector, Valsad, dated 20th December, 2013. 3. The dispute which was before the revenue authorities was in relation to Mutation Entry No.8058. The said Entry was mutated in respect of Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/7345/2018 ORDER lands bearing Survey Nos.149/4, 150, 154/1, 154/2, 154/3 and 155/2 at Village Sari, Taluka Umargam, which was in the name of one Kalyanbhai Morarbhai in his Account No.558. It appears that the said Entry No.8058 came to be mutated upon death of said Kalyanbhai and the name of heirs were entered which was subsequently certified by the Circle Officer on 17th October, 2011. 3.1 However, it further appears that Deputy Collector noticed that the said land was already encumbered and was held by the Income-tax Department. Therefore, he made a proposal to take the said Entry in review. The Collector responded to the proposal, passed order dated 20th December, 2013 to cancel the Entry No.8058. Against the said cancellation, petitioner filed Revision Application culminating into the impugned order. 4. As learned Assistant Government Pleader took the Court through the order of the Collector which is confirmed by the revisional authority, the contents thereof based on the record of the case, clearly mentioned that prior to the impugned Mutation Entry, Entry No.7503 was mutated. The land in question was attached with encumbrance in the nature of dues to the tune of Rs.05.00 lakhs payable to the Income-tax Department. At the relevant time, the land was put to auction, and upset price was fixed at Rs.05.00 lakhs. Order of the Collector as well as the order of the revisional authority noticed and recorded the fact that in the auction proceedings since nobody turned Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/7345/2018 ORDER up to submit a bid, Income-tax Office, Vapi, Ward-2, was given the land at the upset price. The Income-tax Department conveyed this fact to the revenue authorities by letters dated 18th March, 1997 and 27th April, 2006. 5. In view of the above factual position, it clearly transpires that Mutation Entry No.8058 which was made and certified in the year 2011, was founded on factually erroneous premise in asmuch as the land already stood in the name of the Income-tax Department. The Income-tax Department being the owner of the land, mutation of heirship Entry No.8058 was out of question, which was rightly cancelled by the revenue authorities. The impugned order, in the facts and circumstances, did not book any error. The challenge fails. Petition is dismissed. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) Anup Page 3 of 3 "