THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

WP/202743/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department seeking a writ of mandamus against the Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey Office, Bijapur, to register the department as the owner of a property previously owned by Sri. Ramrao Bindurao Bagalkotkar. The property was acquired by the Income Tax Department in 1973 under the provisions of Section 269F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a transaction between the erstwhile owner and Nandalal Tejmal Kothari. Despite the acquisition being confirmed by the Apex Court, the property was not registered in the department's name due to alleged errors in the property description in the communications sent to the land records office.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728023 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Civil Appeal No.22303/2007
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMEET DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Income Tax Department; Property acquisition; Revenue records; Writ of Mandamus; Civil Appeal No.22303/2007
• Section: 269F

Judgement Text

"- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH DATED THIS THE 11H DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.202743-745/2014 BETWEEN 1. The Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhavan, Bijapur. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range, Bijapur. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. ... Petitioners (by Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Adv.) AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore. 2. The Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey Office, Bijapur. - - 2 3. The Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum District, Belgaum. ... Respondents (by Sri.Shivakumar R.Tengli, AGA.) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constituton of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider the application dated 28.10.2013 and 19.12.2013 marked as Annexures M and O and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Prl.Hearing this day, the court made the following:- ORDER These writ petitions are filed by the Officers of Income Tax Department, namely the Income Tax Officer, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax. These petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, namely the Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey Office, Bijapur, to enter the name of Income Tax department as owners in the revenue records pertaining to property bearing CTS No.1750/1B situated in Ward No.III of Bijapur City, measuring to an extent of 5109 square yards, in place of - - 3 the existing name as indicated in communication dated 28.10.2013. 2. It is the case of petitioners that the property in question was earlier standing in the name of Sri.Ramrao Bindurao Bagalkotkar (Ramrao) of Bijapur City. In the year 1973 there was a transaction with reference to aforesaid property between the erstwhile owner i.e., Sri.Ramrao and Nandalal Tejmal Kothari (Nandlal) under instrument of transfer for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-. It is stated that at the relevant point of time i.e., in the year 1973 invoking the provisions of 269F of Income Tax Act, 1961, the right of acquisition was claimed by the department and accordingly, the property is appropriated to the Income Tax department. It is the case of petitioners that the said matter went up to Apex Court in SLP, which is later converted in to Civil Appeal No.22303/2007, which has resulted in confirming the acquisition of aforesaid property by the Income Tax department. Though it is stated that a suit is filed in OS.No.652/2010 by the family members of - - 4 erstwhile owner Sri.Ramrao with reference to title to said property, no orders are passed to protect the alleged title and interest of the members of the erstwhile owners family. 3. When matter stood thus, it is stated that two communications were sent by the petitioners to the second respondent, namely Assistant Director of Land Records, City Survey Office, Bijapur, for registering the aforesaid property in the name of petitioners in view of the acquisition being complete. In spite of two communications being sent on 28.10.2013 and 19.12.2013 no action is taken by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners have come up in these petitions seeking writ of mandamus to the respondents to implement the communication at Annexures-M and O. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate Sri.Manvendra Reddy, who has taken notice to R1 to R3. On going through the writ petition averments and Annexures-M and O, it is seen - - 5 that the description of the property mentioned in Annexures-M and O so far as the property in question is concerned, is erroneous i.e., in stead of referring to the property number as CTS No.1750/1B it is referred to as CTS 1750/B. Besides this, the other particulars regarding the Ward in which it is situated and the extent of land is also missing. Probably, that may be the reason why the respondents were not able to take appropriate steps pursuant to Annexures-M and O immediately after receipt of the same. 5. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to send appropriate communication giving full particulars of the property and correct reference to its number within 15 days from today to the second respondent. On such communication being sent by the petitioners, within one month there from, the respondents 1 to 3 shall take appropriate steps to see that the name of Income Tax department is registered in the records of City Survey Office, Bijapur, so far as the property - - 6 in question is concerned, unless there is an order contrary to that either by this Court or from the Apex Court. It is made clear that any order of injunction from any Court subordinate to this Court and the Apex Court would not affect the rights of petitioners, which is crystalised in the order of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.22303/2007 so far as the aforesaid property is concerned. Sd/- JUDGE. nd "