Shri Kishan Singh Ujjawal and Shri Mahendra Gupta and Shri Omprakash Agarwal and Shri Hastimal Kothari and Shri Paras Chand Khinvansra V. The Union of India & Ors.

SAW/1391/2012

AI Insights

This case involves a series of appeals by members of M/s Navin Grah Nirmal Sahkari Samiti (the Samiti) against the Union of India concerning the compulsory acquisition of land under Section 269D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellants challenged the acquisition notice and the subsequent order of acquisition, claiming that they were not properly served with the notice as required by the Act. However, their challenges were based on arguments that had previously been rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in related cases. The court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the earlier judgments that the notice served to the Samiti was sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803059 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.95/2003, Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.16303/2011, Writ Petition No.8987/2011
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; SAURABH JAIN; KUSHAGRA SHARMA; SANDEEP PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: N M RANKA; NK JAIN
• Keywords: Compulsory Acquisition; Income Tax; Land Acquisition; Notice; Samiti; Allottees
• Section: 269D

Judgement Text

" [1] DBSAW NO.1390/2012 & OTHER SAWs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1390/2012 SHRI KISHAN SINGH UJJAWAL Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2) D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1391/2012 SHRI MAHENDRA GUPTA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (3) D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1392/2012 SHRI OMPRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (4) D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1393/2012 SHRI HASTIMAL KOTHARI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (5) D. B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1394/2012 SHRI PARAS CHAND KHINVASRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE:07.10.2015 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. N.M. Ranka, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.K. Jain, for the appellants. Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Saurabh Jain & Mr. Kushagra Sharma Mr. Sandeep Pathak, for the respondents. ***** These intra-Court appeals are directed against the common order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellants' S.B. Civil Writ Petitions. 2. On 02.10.1974, M/s Navin Grah Nirmal Sahkari Samiti (in short, 'the Samiti') entered into an agreement to purchase land from M/s Jai Marwar Company Private Limited. Thereafter on 01.02.1982, sale deed was executed, which was registered on 27.07.1984. On 15.03.1985, the Income Tax Department issued a notice to the Samiti under Section 269D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') for compulsory acquisition of property. Also a similar notice was issued to M/s Jai [2] DBSAW NO.1390/2012 & OTHER SAWs Marwar Company Private Limited. After considering the objections to the notices, the competent authority under the Act vide order dated 16.10.2012 directed for compulsory acquisition of the land. 3. The appellants claiming themselves to be the members of the Samiti and allottees of plots, challenged the acquisition notice dated 15.03.1985 as well as order of acquisition dated 16.10.2012 before the learned Single Judge by filing separate S.B. Civil Writ Petitions, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by a common impugned order. The main ground of challenge of the appellants is that since the notice as required under Section 269D(2) of the Act was not served on them, the acquisition of their lands/plots is illegal. This contention has already been negatived earlier by a Division Bench of this High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.95/2003 vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 and that judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 4. It is not in dispute that the same acquisition notice dated 15.03.1985 and order of acquisition dated 16.10.2012 were challenged by the Samiti on various grounds before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal and it was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2003. Thereafter the Samiti filed D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.95/2003 before this Court, in which similarly placed allottees of land had also intervened. And the Division Bench after hearing the Samiti and allottees, dismissed the appeal by a well reasoned detailed judgment dated 28.03.2011. The Division Bench categorically held that rights or interest of the members came into existence only after the Samiti had acquired the subject land by execution of the sale deed and the Samiti being in effective occupation and control of the land in dispute, service of notice on the Samiti was sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 269D(2) of the Act. Interestingly the Samiti had allotted the plots to its members much after issuance of notice of acquisition dated 15.03.1985, which is also apparent from the list of allottees filed as Annexure-2/1 by the Income Tax Department. The Samiti then filed [3] DBSAW NO.1390/2012 & OTHER SAWs Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.16303/2011 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2011. Undeterred, the Samiti filed review petition and the Supreme Court dismissed it vide order dated 14.08.2012. 5. It is also not in dispute that one of the allottees of land by the Samiti had filed Writ Petition No.8987/2011- Manju Bhandari Vs. Union of India at the Principal Seat Jodhpur assailing the same acquisition notice dated 15.03.1985 and order of acquisition dated 16.10.2002 and it was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2012. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued the appeals at length, but we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.95/2003 vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 which is also binding on us. As already mentioned above, that judgment has even received the seal of approval by the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has thus not committed any illegality in dismissing the appellants' S.B. Civil Writ Petitions. 7. The possession of the land has also been taken by the Income Tax Department in the year 2003. 8. The appeals have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. A copy of the judgment be placed in the connected files. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J. (AJIT SINGH),ACTING C.J. /KKC/ Certificate: All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMAR P.A. "