A.Fatima v. Petitionerin both writ petitions
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.02.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANW.P.Nos.8583 and 8584 of 2002A.Fatima .. Petitionerin both writ petitionsversusThe Appropriate AuthorityIncome Tax DepartmentAnnex Building, II Floor121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai-34. .. Respondentsboth writ petition -----PRAYER: W.P.Nos.8583 and 8584 of 2002 are filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in proceedings ofthe respondent dated 27.2.2002 in F.No.AA/MDS11(491)2/2001-02 andAA/MDS/11(491)02/ 2001-02 respectively, quash the same andconsequently forbear the respondent from interfering with thepeaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by thepetitioner herein in Old No.36, New Door No.10, VenkataramanStreet, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 by force, invoking any of theprovisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.For petitioners in both :Mr.R.AchuthanFor respondent in both :Mrs. Pushya SitaramanSenior Standing Counsel for Income TaxORDER(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)W.P.No.8583 of 2002 is against the order of the AppropriateAuthority, Income Tax Department to quash the order dated27.2.2002 and to forbear the respondent from interfering with thepossession and enjoyment of the property. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The transferor one Shri. Raman Lal N.Trivedi and thetransferee M/s.Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. filed Form 37-Ifor the transfer of the property at New No.36, Venkatarama IyerStreet, Chennai-17, for an apparent consideration ofRs.52,00,000/- (Rupees fifty two lakhs only). By order dated27.2.2002, after hearing the parties, the appropriate authoritypurchased the property under Section 269-UD(1). A show causenotice was served on the writ petitioner herein since his name wasmentioned in Form 37-I and was called upon to produce evidence insupport of his occupancy of a part of the property. It is statedin the order dated 27.2.2002 that the writ petitioner did notproduce any evidence in support of the claim as to the occupancyas a tenant. In the circumstances, the appropriate authority heldthat the encumbrance was with a view to defeat the provisions of Chapter XX-C and declared such encumbrance as void as per theprovisions of Section 269-UE(1). Against this order, the writpetition is preferred, contending that he was in occupation fromthe year 1990 and that he had filed documents before the CityCivil Court in O.S.No.6808 of 2001. In the circumstances, thepetitioner submitted that the respondent could not require aperson in lawful possession to vacate the property.
W.P.No.8584 of 2002 is against the order dated27.2.2002 wherein the respondent had called upon the petitionerherein to surrender possession in view of the order of preemptivepurchase passed by the respondent. The contentions in both thewrit petitions are identical.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contendedthat the order calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premisesis totally unsustainable.
A perusal of the order shows that the petitioner wasworking as a watchman to the building. It is stated that theowner asked the petitioner to live in the rear portion of thebuilding as a tenant. During October 2001, the petitioner wasasked to vacate the property without giving the salary. Hence, hefiled a suit in O.S.No.6808 of 2001 on the file of the V AssistantCity Civil Court and sought for interim injunction. He submittedthat he had expended on the maintenance of the property, includingpayment of electricity and he needs to be paid a sum ofRs.2,50,000/-. He requested that the claim, hence, be consideredand orders passed.
As seen from the order dated 27.2.2002, the respondent hadclearly stated that the petitioner had not produced any evidencein support of his claim and that the occupancy of the portionitself was found to be unlawful. In the circumstances, in theabsence of any material to disturb the said finding, it is notpossible for this Court to interfere with the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent herein. Even otherwise, we do not find any merit in thewrit petition. Consequently the writ petitions fail and aretherefore dismissed. There will, however, be no order as tocosts. KsvSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarThe Appropriate AuthorityIncome Tax DepartmentAnnex Building, II Floor121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai-34.+one cc Mr. R.Achunathan, Advocate sr no. 12022+ one cc to Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, SSC It Departmentgv(co)nm(26.03.07)W.P.Nos.8583 and 8584 of 2002
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.