Ujagar Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

This petition seeks quashing of letter dated March 22, 2007 (annexure P-16), whereby it was decided to convert the Plot No. 5, Link Road, Faridabad, which was taken over by the Income Tax Department u/s 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for the use of Centralized Processing Centre.

The case set out in the petition is that Sita Wanti Chadha mother of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 was the owner of the property in dispute, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated February 27,1961. 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 August 23, 1996 (annexure P5) mainly on account of construction existing thereon. Thereafter, an agreement to sell dated April 23, 2000 (annexure P8), 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 u/s 269UC of the Act for securing no objection certificate. The petitioners filed objections to the proposed sale on May 25, 2000, vide annexure P9. It has come on record that, vide order dated August 31, 2000, the property in dispute was acquired u/s 269UD(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 September 28, 2000. Thereupon, the property vested in the Central Government. Auction thereof was proposed for March 27, 2007, but the same was cancelled and a decision was taken on March 22, 2007, to use the said property for the office of the Income Tax Department.

Contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioners were the lessees and were in the possession of the property and had right to be heard before an order u/s 269UD(1) of the Act was passed, in the absence of which, the impugned order was illegal.

This contention has been opposed in the reply filed on behalf of the 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 March 1,1964. 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:

That in the instant case, the immovable property in question was purchased by Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha wife of Shri Gurbachan Singh Chadha on February 27,1961, and on the same day lease hold rights over the said property were purchased by her husband Shri Gurbachan Singh Chadha. He died on March 1, 1964, without executing any will. The said immovable 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 August 23, 1996, and January 22, 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.

It has been further stated that a decision was taken on August 31, 2000, after recording a finding that the possession was with Sita Wanti Chadha (paragraph 4 of the reply). In reply to paragraph 16(i), it has been stated as under:

16 ...

(i) The property in question was purchased by the Central Government vide order dated August 31, 2000, u/s 269UD(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 September 28, 2000. The order u/s 269UD(1) dated August 31, 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 paragraphs supra. The property vests with the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 269UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have no locus standi as they are neither transferor nor transferee.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It remains undisputed that after passing an order of acquiring the property on August 31, 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.

The 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 August 23,1996 (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 January 21,1999 (annexure P6) on the application of Sita Wanti Chadha. There is no material to ignore the averment on behalf of the Income Tax Department that on September 28, 2000, physical possession was taken over. The amount had already been paid to Sita Wanti Chadha.

Even in the present writ petition, order dated August 31, 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 steps. There is no other material to show the possession of the petitioners.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition.

Dismissed.