AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner purchased house No. 206, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh, measuring 1,183 sq. yards (more than two kanals) for the sale consideration of Rs. 9,50,000, vide sale deed dated December 28, 1982, in pursuance of the agreement dated fuly 29, 1982. The Income Tax Department obtained the valuation report of the house on June 9, 1983, according to which the value of the property was Rs. 13,88,000. Acting upon the same, the petitioners were called upon to submit their reply to the report of the Valuation Officer. The petitioners submitted their reply on June 21, 1983, contesting the correctness of the report. Thereupon, the Income Tax Department issued notice to the petitioners and vendors of the house in dispute u/s 269D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding initiation of proceedings for acquisition of the house as the Department had reasons to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeded the apparent consideration as agreed to between the parties. The petitioners, in reply to the notice, reiterated their stand that the house had in fact been purchased for Rs. 9,50,000 only and added that, in case the Department was not satisfied with the explanation, the house could be acquired and compensation paid to the petitioners. The matter remained pending and ultimately on October 7, 1985, final order was passed u/s 269F(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the necessary notification was issued on August 11, 1986, whereby possession was taken over and compensation amounting to Rs. 10,92,500 was paid to the petitioners.
This notification reads as under :
"Government of india
central public works department
Notification of actual date of taking possession of House No. 206 (Kothi Type), Sector 36-A, Chandigarh.
Particulars of accommodation
Unfurnished/ furnished
Office to which attached
Date of taking possession
Quarter No. 206
Unfurnished
income tax Department
11.8.1986
Type Sector
Kothi 36-A
Handed over (Sd.) M. S. Vohra, Advocate for Col. APS Grewal and Major GBS Grewal
Taken over (Sd.) V. K. Sharma, J. E./CPWD CPBF CHD 11.8.86."
11.8.86
Considering the amount of compensation paid to the petitioners as inadequate, the petitioners claimed solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. and interest on the basis of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, along with various other amounts by way of compensation, e.g., expenses of the chowkidar incurred by the petitioners during the period the house remained unoccupied and loss due to non-utilisation, etc. However, the claim made by the petitioners, vide orders dated January 6, 1987, and February 11, 1987, informing the petitioners that, since possession of the property was delivered on August 11, 1986, the property had vested with the Central Government with effect from that date, that is, August 11, 1986, on which date the compensation was paid.
The petitioners have ultimately approached this court for the quashing of the aforesaid decision of the respondents and for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the acquisition being of compulsory nature, the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which is a special Act should prevail, having an overriding effect over the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On that basis, it has been contended that the petitioners should also be held entitled to the additional amount of 30 per cent. of the apparent consideration and not 15 per cent. as awarded by the Income Tax Department ; finally, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the Central Government right from the date when the petitioners filed objections to the acquisition, that is, June 23, 1983, and not from August 11, 1986, when possession was taken and compensation was paid in pursuance of the notification. The claim for interest is based on the contention that since payment of compensation was delayed, the petitioners were entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum for the first year and at 15 per cent. per annum till the date of payment.
In the written statement, the Income Tax Department has justified its decision by pleading that the amount paid to the petitioners, that is, Rs. 10,92,500, was by way of compensation paid in accordance with the statutory provisions, that is, the apparent consideration amounting to Rs. 9,50,000 plus 15 per cent. interest thereon. Therefore, the enhanced compensation in respect of any item claimed by the petitioner was not payable by the Income Tax Department.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the writ petition as the additional amounts claimed by the petitioners by way of enhanced compensation, solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. already paid, interest on compensation from June 21, 1983, additional compensation on account of appreciation of the market value with effect from the aforesaid date, and wages of the chowkidar, etc., are not payable to the petitioners. A combined reading of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Land Acquisition Act clearly shows that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended, were neither actually made applicable nor were they ever intended to be so made to the proceedings for acquisition of property under Sections 269I, 269J and 269K of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Chapter XXA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to acquisition of immovable property in fact is a code in itself, inserted for a specific purpose which, of course, has now undergone a drastic change after the Finance Act, 1986, vide which new Chapter XXC has been added. Section 269I does not provide for any further compensation, that is, at the rate of 30 per cent. by way of solatium or additional compensation on account of appreciation or for meeting expenses like wages of chowkidar, etc. The only compensation which is payable for acquisition of property has to be worked out in accordance with Section 269J(1) without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Similarly, Section 269K(4) provides for payment of interest from the date of vesting of the property acquired by the Central Government. Sub-section (4) of Section 269I clearly provides that the property is vested from the date the possession is taken and not from any date earlier thereto. Therefore, since possession of the property was taken by the Income Tax Department u/s 269I(2) and Section 269I(3) on August 11, 1986, it is from that date that the property came to be vested in the Central Government and the compensation became payable. The mandate of the Legislature with regard to the manner and method of determining the amount of compensation having been specifically provided in the statute itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the provisions of any other statute cannot be invoked for determining the amount of compensation for acquisition under Chapter XXA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or for enhancing the amount of compensation, even if, in a given case, the court finds that the citizen has actually suffered some financial loss due to the remissness or delay on the part of the Income Tax Department. For that, resort will have to be made by seeking remedy under the ordinary law.
In view of the above legal position, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.