SANATAN BUDEG V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

WA/769/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanatan Budeg, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned Single Judge regarding a benami transaction involving ancestral land. The land, bearing Khasra No. 230 and 255, was allegedly sold in a benami transaction where the actual transaction was between members of a Scheduled Tribe and a non-tribal individual, with the sale consideration paid by the non-tribal. The appellant, claiming a share in the ancestral property, argued that the authorities failed to act on his complaint about the benami transaction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Single Judge's decision that the appellant had no maintainable claim as he was neither a seller nor a purchaser.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768377 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NAUSHINA ALI; SANGHARSH PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SURFARAJ KHAN
• Keywords: Benami transaction; Condonation of delay; Land sale; Writ Appeal; Tribal land protection
• Section: 23

Judgement Text

"1 / 7 2024:CGHC:46211-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 769 of 2024 Sanatan Budeg S/o Shri Lal Bihari Budeg Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Room No. 201 First Floor Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Initiating Officer Pbpt Act. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Room No. 201 First Floor Central Revenue Building Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue) Government Of India New Delhi 4 - Adjudicating Officer Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act., 1988, Room No. 26, 4th Floor Jeevan Deep Building Parliament Street New Delhi 5 - Shoukilal Bariha S/o Shri Hutasan Bariha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Padkipali Post Paraswani P.S. Sankara Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Benimadar) 6 - Santosh Patel S/o Shri Chetan Patel Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil - Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Beneficial Owner) 7 - Manoj S/o Late Shri Tikelal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 2 / 7 8 - Naveen S/o Late Shri Tikelal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 9 - Chabi S/o Late Shri Tikelal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 10 - Kiskinaar S/o Late Shri Tikelal Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Nawagaon P.S. Basna Tehsil Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 11 - Collector Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 12 - Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Pithora District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 13 - Municipal Council Mungeli Through Chief Municipal Officer Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 : Ms. Naushina Ali on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhari. For Respondent / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.11.2024 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State as well as Ms. Naushina Ali on behalf of Mr. 3 / 7 Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel for private respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 on I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 09.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3420/2024 (Sanatan Budeg vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and respondents No. 7 to 10 are real cousin brother, as the fathers of appellant and respondents No. 7 to 10 were the real brothers and both of them passed away. The respondent No. 5 is the alleged Benamidar and respondent No. 6 is the alleged beneficial owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 230, Rakba- 0.30 Hectare & Khasra No. 255, Rakba- 0.39 Hectare, situated at Village- Nawagaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G). On 22/05/2023, a benami transaction happened by way of registered sale-deed of land bearing Khasra No. 230, Rakba- 0.30 Hectare & Khasra No. 255, Rakba- 0.39 Hectare, situated at Village- Nawagaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G). The said subject land is transferred (Sold) by the members 4 / 7 of schedule tribe community (Respondent No. 7 to 10) to a schedule community (Respondent No. 5) and the sale consideration is of Rs 4,22,000/- which is paid completely by the respondent no. 6, who is not a member of Schedule Tribe Community. In that way, the respondent no. 5 is the alleged benamidar and respondent no. 6 is the alleged beneficial owner of the subject land. The appellant has made a written complaint to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora on 22/05/2023, but no action was taken by the concerned authority. As the subject land is a joint family property to which the appellant do have an interest and claim over it. So that is how the appellant is affected. On 24/05/2023, the appellant has made a written complaint to the office of respondent No. 2 (Initiating Officer) with all relevant documents, but the respondent no. 2 is also not taking any action on the complaint. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in the first hearing itself without calling the counter affidavit from the respondents, as to whether the complaint (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) is decided by the respondent authority, one way or the other. As the appellant can claim his share of coparcener property was not a claim in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. Appellant did asked for proceeding by issuance of a writ by commanding the respondent no. 2 herein to act on the complaint (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) of the appellant. But the learned single judge did dismissed the W.P. (C) No. 3420/2024 on the angle of appellant 5 / 7 can claim his share of property. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 passed by the learned single Judge in WPC No. 3420/2024 is illegal and without reasoning and needs to be set-aside because the real issue is not decided by the learned single judge and this will ratify the benami transaction sale-deed and will promote all non-tribal person to buy the land and property, in the name of tribal person and the sale consideration will be paid by the non-tribal person and the land of a tribal will be snatched like this very way. Ab-original tribal in the state of Chhattisgarh have very few land to hold for their occupation and survival, but if such an act is promoted and eyes would be winked, the constitutional protection granted to tribals people would come to an end. So the impugned order dated 09/07/2024 passed in WPC No. 3420/2024 by the learned single Judge is illegal and the order passed by the learned single Judge will lead to remediless on the issue of benami transaction. Further, the inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 on the complaint (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) is illegal, arbitrary and lack of authority because under Section 23 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, the respondent No. 2 has to take an action from preventing the beneficial owner and benami transaction. So the inaction by the respondent No. 2 is illegal and is depicting the vested interest of beneficial owner (Respondent No. 6 herein). Whereas, the act on the part of respondent No. 2 by not proceeding ahead on the 6 / 7 complaint filed by the appellant by the respondent authorities, is/are erroneous to full of its extent, for the very reason that the respondent authorities are not exercising the power and duties, as per the law and the authority of benami act is thrown in the wind, just in order to protect the alleged private respondents and that too without adhering the mandatory provision of law, as prescribed. 6. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that the petitioner is neither the seller of the land nor the purchaser. The grievance shown by the counsel for the petitioner is that the co-ownership property is sold by some of the co-owner and he was not paid the amount of his share and therefore, the writ petitioner preferred by the writ petitioner is not maintainable. 9. Having gone through the submissions advanced by learned 7 / 7 counsel for the parties and having gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we do not perceive any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as would warrant any indulgence by this Court in the present intra court appeal. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet "