UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/3369/2008

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the property at Plot No.5, Link Road, Faridabad, which was acquired by the Income Tax Department under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, descendants of the original owner, contested the decision to convert the property for use by the Centralized Processing Centre without a hearing, claiming rights as lessees. The court examined the legal standing of the petitioners, the procedural history of the property acquisition, and the compliance with statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act. The dismissal of the petition was based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioners' claim of continued possession and their failure to challenge the initial acquisition order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686935 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PUTNEY; G S ATTARIWALA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY BHAN
• Keywords: Centralized Processing Centre; Lease hold rights; No objection certificate; Property acquisition; Quashing of letter; Hearing rights
• Section: 269UC; 269UE; 269UD

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 Date of decision: 12.11.2008 Ujagar Singh and others. -----Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 8. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 22.3.2007 (Annexure P-16), whereby it was decided to convert the Plot No.5, Link Road, Faridabad, which was taken over by Income Tax Department under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the use of Centralized Processing Centre. 2. Case set out in the petition is that Sita Wanti Chadha mother of petitioners No.1 to 3 was the owner of the property in C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 dispute, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.1961. Late S. Gurbachan Singh Chadha husband of Sita Wanti Chadha entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights of the said property. The property was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1973. However, the same was released from acquisition in the proceedings initiated by Sita Wanti Chadha in C.A. No.258 of 1983 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as recorded in the order dated 23.8.1996 (Annexure P-5) mainly on account of construction existing thereon. Thereafter, an agreement to sell dated 23.4.2000 (Annexure P-8) was entered into between Sita Wanti Chadha and M/s Sunflag Engineers Pvt. Ltd., in which respondent No.7, daughter-in-law of Sita Wanti Chadha, was one of the Directors. Sita Wanti Chadha made an application under Section 269-UC of the Act for securing no objection certificate. The petitioners filed objections to the proposed sale on 25.5.2000 vide Annexure P-9. It has come on record that vide order dated 31.8.2000, the property in dispute was acquired under Section 269 UD(1) of the Act, on the ground that ostensible consideration was under evaluation. It is further on record that a sum of Rs.61,89,000/- was paid to Sita Wanti Chadha who handed over the vacant possession of the property to the Central Government on 28.9.2000. Thereupon, the property vested in the Central Government. Auction thereof was proposed for 27.3.2007, but the same was cancelled and a decision was taken on 22.3.2007 2 C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 to use the said property for the office of the Income Tax Department. 3. Contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioners were lessees and were in the possession of the property and had right to be heard before an order under Section 269 UD(1) of the Act was passed, in absence of which, the impugned order was illegal. 4. This contention has been opposed in the reply filed on behalf of Income Tax Department, by submitting that the requirement of giving of hearing is applicable to the transferor in occupation of the property and only if the transferor is not in occupation of the property, any other person in occupation or otherwise interested in the property is entitled to be heard. In the present case, Sita Wanti Chadha was the owner in possession and her husband S.Gurbachan Singh Chadha, who entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights, had died on 1.3.1964. The property was acquired by the State of Haryana in 1973 and possession was, thereafter, restored to Sita Wanti Chadha after the said property was released from acquisition. Relevant averments are as under:- “2. That in the instant case, the immovable property in question was purchased by Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha wife of Shri Gurbachan Singh Chadha on 27.2.1961 and on the same day lease hold rights over the said property were purchased by her husband Shri Gurbachan Singh Chadha. He died on 01.03.1964 without executing any will. The said immovable 3 C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 property was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1973 but the acquisition was ultimately set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.08.1996 and 22.01.1999, on the appeal filed by Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha, possession was given back to her by the State of Haryana and her name was entered in the columns of owner and cultivator in the Mutation Register vide Sr.No.5549.” 5. It has been further stated that a decision was taken on 31.8.2000 after recording a finding that the possession was with Sita Wanti Chadhad (para 4 of the reply). In reply to para 16(i), it has been stated as under:- “16. xx xx xx xx xx (i) The property in question was purchased by the Central Government vide order dated 31.08.2000 under section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for apparent consideration of Rs.61,89,000/-. Payment has been made to the transferor and is acknowledged and transferor Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha had handed over peaceful vacant possession of the property to the Central Government on 28.09.2000. The order under section 269 UD(1) dated 31.08.2000 had never been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court or any other authority. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Appropriate Authority is final and conclusive as already submitted in the paras supra. The property vests with Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section269 UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have no 4 C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 locus standi as they are neither transferor nor transferee.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It remains undisputed that after passing an order of acquiring the property on 31.8.2000, compensation was paid to Sita Wanti Chadha and the property, thus, vested in the Central Government. No steps were taken thereafter to challenge the said action till filing of a writ petition in the year 2007 which was withdrawn, followed by the present writ petition. 8. Contention that the petitioners continued to be in possession, is not borne out from the records. The same is negatived by the record. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.8.1996 (Annexure-5) shows that only Sita Wanti Chadha challenged the acquisition and sought the possession, which was restored to her in pursuance of order dated 21.1.1999 (Annexure P-6) on the application of Sita Wanti Chadha. There is no material to ignore the averment on behalf of the Income Tax Department that on 28.9.2000, physical possession was taken over. The amount had already been paid to Sita Wanti Chadha. 9. Even in the present writ petition, order dated 31.8.2000, has not been challenged. Only explanation given is that the petitioners were never aware of the said order, which averment cannot be accepted. After taking of possession by the State of Haryana, the petitioners are not shown to have taken any 5 C.W.P. No.3369 of 2008 steps. There is no other material to show the possession of the petitioners. 10. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the petition. 11. Dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 12, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 6 "