AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Though there is a delay of 308 days in filing the review petition. I have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate at length in order to ascertain the merits of the matter.
This review petition is filed, assailing order dated 17/12/2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 23800/2012 & 26485-87/2012. By that order, Annexure-L dated 5/3/2012 issued by the Income-Tax Department, Mysuru, restraining the Deputy Commissioner from acting on the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, dated 5/6/2006 (Annexure-E) was quashed. Also respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein, i.e., petitioners herein were directed to consider the application made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, in order to effect changes in the revenue records, particularly having regard to the fact that the auction of the land in question by the Income-Tax Department had been upheld by this Court. A direction was given to carry out the said exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioners herein had preferred Writ Appeal Nos. 1254/2014 & 1431-1433/2014. However, on the submission made by learned Addl. Advocate General, the Division Bench permitted withdrawal of the appeals with liberty to file the review petition. Hence, on the strength of the judgment, passed by the Division Bench, these review petitions have been preferred.
I have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for petitioners herein.
He submitted that, this Court could not have directed the petitioners herein to consider the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein with regard to effecting changes in the revenue records by quashing the representation dated 5/6/2006 issued by the Income-Tax Department. He contended that the land in question, which was auctioned by the Income-Tax Department is a tank bed area and it did not belong to the erstwhile Maharaja or his legal heir, but it belonged to the State Government and therefore, Income-Tax Department could not have auctioned the land in question i.e., Sy. No. 75, measuring 12 acres 9 guntas, for the purpose of recovery of income-tax dues from the son of erstwhile Maharaja.
He contended that, even though certain lands might have been given to the erstwhile Maharaja pursuant to Gazette Notification dated 26/10/1950, the land in question, which is a tank bed area could not have been a subject matter of auction. He, therefore, contended that this Court ought not to have issued a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the application to effect changes of the revenue records in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein.
During the course of submission, he also brought to my notice, order dated 22/6/2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6529/2007 and connected matters, wherein under similar circumstances, this court had not granted any such direction to persons similarly situated as the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and had dismissed the writ petitions. He contended that, in that order also Sy. No. 1 was Doddakere Maidan tank bed and that tank bed could not have been auctioned by the Income Tax Department for the recovery of dues.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate also pointed out that there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record. But in fact, he was not able to point out what those errors were.
Having heard learned Addl. Government Advocate, I have considered his submissions in light of the material on record as well as order that has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court and which is relied upon in these review petitions in the additional material produced in these review petitions.
It is noted that, in the writ petitions, out of which these review petitions arise, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had sought a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the application made by them for effecting changes in the revenue records having been successful in the auction and having regard to the fact that the auction of land in question, by the Income Tax Department, had been upheld by this court. It is in that context, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein had assailed Annexure-L dated 5/3/2012, issued by the Income Tax Department, restraining the Deputy Commissioner from acting on the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 dated 5/6/2006.
It was the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein that, having purchased the land in question at the auction held on 19/01/1994 and having paid full purchase money and the auction having been confirmed on 23/10/1994 by the Income Tax Department, the latter could not have restrained the Deputy Commissioner from acting on the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein in the year 2006 while seeking entry of their names in the revenue records. The grievance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein was, in fact, against the Income Tax Department for restraining the Revenue Authorities from acting on their application. In fact, this Court took note of the fact that in W.P. No. 23641/1994 was filed by the Corporation City of Mysuru, seeking quashing of the auction sale proceedings. This Court by order dated 12/9/1995 had dismissed the said writ petition reserving liberty to the Corporation City of Mysuru to file Civil Suit, if they were aggrieved by the auction. Subsequent to the disposal of writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein had made repeated requests to the Income Tax Department for execution of the sale certificate, which was ultimately granted to them on 15/6/2005 and the same was registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar on that date. Thereafter, on 6/5/2006, application was filed by the petitioners before the Tahsildar-3rd petitioner herein seeking change in the revenue entries in respect of the land in question. On the said application, enquiries were made culminating in the direction issued by the 1st petitioner herein to the Divisional Commissioner on 16/6/2010, to mutate the entries in the name of petitioners therein. As no change in the mutation entries had taken place, petitioners continued to pursue their request and made one more representation on 8/4/2011. In response to that, the State Government had issued a communication to the Deputy Commissioner on 4/7/2011, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G. The said communication categorically stated that the land belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysuru as per Gazette Notification dated 26/10/1950. It is on that premise, that the Income Tax Department had auctioned land in question so as to recover dues from the son of erstwhile Maharaja.
When the State Government had taken a stand as per Annexure-G communication dated 4/7/2011 to the effect that the land in question belonged to the erstwhile Ruler of Mysuru, the subsequent stand taken by the State Government that was a tank bed and therefore, mutation entries could not be made in favour of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. So long as the Government Gazette Notification dated 26/10/1950 is intact insofar as the land in question is concerned and the communication dated 4/7/2011 issued by the 1st petitioner herein, which is in consonance with that Gazette Notification is also in operation, the direction issued to the State Government cannot be evaded by contending that the land in question is a tank bed. In fact, such a contention was raised by the learned counsel for the State and it has been noticed that in para 15 of the order under review.
I have nevertheless perused the common order of the Division Bench of this court, dated 22/6/2011.
(a) Therein W.P. No. 36901/1999 was filed by the State and two others seeking a writ of certiorari to quash endorsement dated 6/8/1999 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer and another endorsement dated 18/8/1999 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. It was contended therein that, as per the agreement dated 23/1/1950, entered into between the Government of India and the Maharaja of Mysuru, in respect of property and privy purse, the disputed property was identified as Doddakere tank bed at Sl. No. 27 of the inventory, which was earmarked by the Maharaja of Mysuru by way of donation for a public purpose. The said property comprised 145.13 acres, identified as Sy. No. 1, Mysuru Kasaba, Mysuru. Out of which, 80 acres of land was used for the purpose of stadium as per order dated 17/5/1960. The mutation record reflected that the State was vested with the rights to use that land for public purpose. As the erstwhile Maharaja had failed to pay arrears of income-tax, Doddakere Maidan was attached by the Income-tax Department in connection with huge arrears of tax. Subsequently, the Income-tax Department auctioned the said property to realise the tax dues.
(b) W.P. No. 8638/2008 was filed by the purchasers of the property in the auction conducted by the Income-tax Department, by contending that they had become the owners of disputed property as sale certificate had been issued in their favour and the said transaction was registered. That petition was filed in respect of 12 acres of land comprising of Sy. No. 1 of Doddakere Maidan, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru, as per the boundary described in schedule.
(c) W.P. No. 6529/2007 was filed by the successful bidders in the auction conducted by the Income-tax Department towards realisation of tax dues in respect of 3 acres of land. Subsequently, sale certificate dated 21/1/1994 had been issued. The petitioners in that writ petition questioned the legality of order dated 1/8/2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision No. 28/2005-06 confirming the order dated 25/4/2005 passed in proceeding No. RRT(A) 120/98-99 by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, dismissing their appeals against the order dated 17/12/1988 passed by the Tahsildar, Mysuru, in proceeding Nos. RRT(20)264/96-97 & RRT 101/96-97, rejecting the prayer for transfer of Khatha in their favour in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 1.
(d) The Division Bench on going through the records held that, prima facie, there was an order of attachment by the Income-tax Authorities over Sy. No. 1 of Doddakere Maidan, measuring 10 acres of land and therefore, a direction was sought against the State Government restraining them from conducting any exhibition or other such activity on the said land. It was contended on behalf of the State that, the said land was vested with the State Government and it did not belong to the Maharaja of Mysuru or his legal representatives. The Division Bench noted that, there was a dispute regarding question of title and that disputed questions of fact in the title could not be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench held that, it could not go into the disputed questions of fact to decide the title, validity of charge or otherwise and the right of Income-tax Department to conduct sale of property, which was attached. In the circumstances, all the writ petitions were dismissed reserving liberty to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
The factual position which obtains in this case is quite distinct as has been noted in paragraph No. 11, supra. Therefore, the common order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22/6/2011 is not applicable.
In the instant case, the following decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of exercising of jurisdiction review can be relied upon.
(a) In the case of Promoters and Builders Association of Pune Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Others, , it has been reiterated that review of an order is not a routine procedure. It is not permissible, unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of judgment in a case is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake like a grave error has crept in.
(b) In Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs., , it has been opined that an application for a review would lie inter alia, when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In paragraph - 7 of the judgment, the scope of review as has been stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been reiterated. It has been observed that review is not an appeal in disguise. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.
(c) In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has enunciated on the notion of error apparent on the face of record and held that if an error is not germane or relevant to the dispute, then it is impermissible to re-agitate a decided issue. In that case, it was also held that although there was a misquoting of a report in the judgment, that did not give rise to a review. It was also opined that mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be a ground for invoking review jurisdiction. As along as the point is already dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under review jurisdiction. Under such jurisdiction, the Court can interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment. In that case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition by deleting the misquoted lines. Meaning of review as stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also reiterated and the review petition was dismissed.
In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the review petitions. Review petitions are dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the review petitions, application I.A. 1/14 for condonation of delay would not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed.