Smt. Mithlesh Kumari V. Union Of India and Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department and Mrs. Radha Rawat and Shri Ashok Kumar Rawat and Shri Ravindra Kumar Rawat and Shri Rajendra Kumar Rawat and Shri Anandi Lal Roongta and Shri Vinod Kumar Roongta and Shri Raman Roongta and Smt. Suman Roongta and Shri Bhagwan Singh

CW/14576/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Mithlesh Kumari, the petitioner, who sought a declaration that the purchase order dated 30.03.1994 by the appropriate authority should be abrogated and a no objection certificate issued under Section 269 UL (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court had previously confirmed the preemptive purchase order, and only the disbursement of sale consideration was remanded back to the appropriate authority for decision. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition, stating that the challenge to the 1994 order is not permissible as the Supreme Court had upheld it. The court suggested that the petitioner could file a new petition regarding the order issued on 11.02.2020 concerning the disbursement of sale consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802109 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SHOVIT JHAJHARIA
• Keywords: No objection certificate; Preemptive purchase order; Disbursement of sale consideration
• Section: 269 UG; 269 UL (3); 269 UG(4)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14576/2021 Smt. Mithlesh Kumari W/o Shri Hari Prakash Kuchhal, Aged About 80 Years, R/o 73, Gaurav Nagar, Raj Bhawan Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi. 2. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, 8Th Floor, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. 3. Mrs. Radha Rawat W/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar Rawat, R/o 1/492, Mor Kutir, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. Shri Ashok Kumar Rawat Son Of Shri Ram Narayan Rawat, Resident Of 1/492, Mor Kutir, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Sanganer, District Jaipur. 5. Shri Ravindra Kumar Rawat Son Of Shri Ram Narayan Rawat, Resident Of 1/492, Mor Kutir, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Sanganer, District Jaipur. 6. Shri Rajendra Kumar Rawat Son Of Shri Ram Narayan Rawat, Resident Of 1/492, Mor Kutir, Khadi Gramodyog Road, Sanganer, District Jaipur. 7. Shri Anandi Lal Roongta S/o Shri Ram Niwas Roongta, Resident Of 55, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 8. Shri Vinod Kumar Roongta S/o Shri Anandi Lal Roongta, Resident Of 55, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 9. Shri Raman Roongta S/o Shri Anandi Lal Roonta, Resident Of 55, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 10. Smt. Suman D/o Shri Anandi Lal Roongta, Resident Of 55, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 11. Shri Bhagwan Singh Son Of Late Shri Shiv Lal Singh, Resident Of 78, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents (2 of 3) [CW-14576/2021] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shovit Jhajharia on behalf of Ms. Mamta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 24/02/2022 In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the purchase order dated 30.03.1994 of the appropriate authority has abrogated and consequently the appropriate authority should issue a no objection certificate under Section 269 UL (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We notice that the order of preemptive purchase passed by the appropriate authority has been confirmed right upto the Supreme Court. By a detailed judgment dated 29.07.2019 the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the land owners against the preemptive purchase order dated 30.03.1994. However limited to the extent of the issue of disbursement of the sale consideration to the parties interested as provided in sub- section (4) of Section 269 UG of the Act, the Supreme Court gave relief. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent and the matter was left open for the decision to be taken by the appropriate authority under Section 269 UG of the Act. Under the circumstances the prayers made in the petition cannot be granted. Once the entire innings has been completed culminating into the Supreme Court confirming the decision of the High Court by a detailed judgment, challenge to the same (3 of 3) [CW-14576/2021] preemptive purchase order is not permissible. If the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269 UG(4) of the Act consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court, she must challenge the said order. Challenge to the order dated 30.03.1994 cannot be reopened. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore stated that the petitioner would like to file a fresh petition challenging the said order of the appropriate authority. Disposing of this petition would not prevent the petitioner from bringing fresh petition challenging the said order of the appropriate authority dated 11.02.2020. The petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/1 "