INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 269F(6) Section 269-I section 269K

Acquisition of immovable property - Validity - Right of purchase of property on power of attorney over legal heirs for receiving deposits made against suit property -

By this petition, the two petitioners challenge the order of the Addl. District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar, dated 11-8-2014 by which an Order dated 14-6-2010 was made final and the legal heirs of the person whose property had been acquired by the Union of India (Department of Income Tax), were held entitled to file an application to claim the compensation amount. Having noticed the facts, the Addl. District Judge, vide the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the property in question actually stood acquired vide an Order dated 17-2-1978, in terms of section 269-F (6), with that order having become final upto this Court on 11-3-1983 (with the dismissal of the petition filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), and therefore, the property stood fully vested in the Central Government, which vide an Order dated 08-2-1989, had also taken possession thereof.Held: As regards whether the respondents have actual physical possession of the property or not, it was found absolutely unnecessary to go into that issue, the suit earlier filed by the petitioners being one seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit property, which suit, to yet again repeat, was dismissed. Hence, if the petitioners were still in occupation of the suit property as they claim, without making any comment on the correctness of that contention (or otherwise), it needs to be stated here that such occupation was obviously illegal, with the property vesting in the respondents and in fact an order for taking possession having been passed in the year 1989. As regards the petitioners' right to any part of the compensation of Rs. 2,42,254, firstly of course petitioner no.1 had not seriously agitated before this Court such claim (his 'vehement' contention being that he and his co-petitioner were the rightful owners of the property), but even if such an argument had been seriously pursued, though the petitioners' claim was that they had purchased half of the property in question for a valuable consideration in 1991 from the original owner thereof, however, even so, such owner having lost any right to the property in 1978 itself (and finally in 1981 and again in 1983 with dismissal of his petitions before this Court), he had ceased to be its owner, with no right to sell that property to the petitioners, it having vested in the Union of India for about 13 years as on the date the sale deed was executed, (as was relied upon by the petitioners), in 1991. Consequently, the property having been acquired in terms of section 269F(6), from Manak Chand Khanna in the year 1978, the Addl. District Judge had correctly held in the impugned order that it would only be the legal heirs of Manak Chand Khanna, who would be entitled to payment of compensation, upon them filing any application before that Court. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order and consequently, this petition was dismissed.

REFERRED : RSA-1538-2005, decision of P&H High Court Cordinate Bench and 'M. Mathew Thomas & Ors. v. CIT [Civil Appeal No.1566 of 1993] : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1182 (SC).

FAVOUR : Against the petitioner

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT