SANATAN BUDEG V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WPC/3420/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Sanatan Budeg against multiple respondents including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, concerning a property transaction that allegedly violated the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioner, a co-owner of the property, claimed that his share of the property was sold without his consent and the sale proceeds were not distributed among the co-owners. The respondents argued that the petition was a result of internal family disputes over property shares. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pursue his claims through appropriate legal channels rather than a writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747675 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Benami Transaction [Prohibition] Amendment Act, 2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RISHABH SINGH; NAUSHINA ALI; PRAVEEN DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SURFURAZ KHAN
• Keywords: Benami transaction; Co-ownership; Property Dispute; Sale Consideration; Writ petition
• Section: 23

Judgement Text

" 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3420 of 2024 1. Sanatan Budeg Shri Lal Bihari Budeg, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Room No. 201, First Floor, Central Revenue Buliding, 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 Buliding, 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- Nawgaon, 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) 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 Mahsamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 12.Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 13.Municipal Council, Mungeli Through - Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli (C.G.). -------Respondents (cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfuraz Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Naushina Ali, Advocate along with 2 Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Chaudhari, Advocate For Respondent No. 11 & 12 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. SB:Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09 /07/2024 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (S), Order (s), Direction (s), by commanding Respondent No. 2 to act on the complaint (Annexure P/1) of the petitioner, as per Section 23 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (As amended, the Benami Transaction [Prohibition] Amendment Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01/11/2016), within a time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with the Respondent No. 7 to 10 were owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 230 admeasuring 0.30 hectares and Khasra no. 255 admeasuring 0.39 hectares. The Respondents No. 7 to 10 have sold the part of the said property in favour of one tribal person in the name of Shoukilal Bariha. However, the sale consideration was paid by the Respondent No. 6 who is a non-tribal person. The transfer of land of a tribal person to a non-tribal person is not permissible under the law and therefore, the transfer of land is made through Benami Transaction. Petitioner made several complaints to the different authorities, however, it has not been taken into consideration. 3. When the Court posed question as to what is the locus of the petitioner to file this writ petition, he submits that the petitioner is also co-sharer of the property and is also having the right over that property which has been sold without his consent and the entire sale consideration has been 3 kept by the seller i.e. the Respondent No. 7 to 10. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 submits that there appears to be some dispute between the family members i.e. the petitioner and the Respondents No. 7 to 10 with regard to their share in the joint owner property and this writ petition is filed or the complaint is made only because of some property dispute between them and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 6. 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, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition in its form is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. If the petitioner is having some dispute with respect to the share in the said property or the sale consideration, the petitioner is having some other remedy by way of filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey "