Writ Petition Partially Allowed: Maintain Status Quo Pending Civil Suit

The court allowed the writ petition in part, keeping the impugned order in abeyance. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file a civil suit to establish its rights over the property, with directions to maintain the status quo until the petitioner's rights are determined by a competent court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of Respondents to Auction Property
2. Title and Ownership of the Civic Amenity (C.A.) Site
3. Maintainability of Writ Petition vs. Civil Suit
4. Findings of the Tax Recovery Officer
5. Directions for Future Legal Proceedings

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of Respondents to Auction Property:
The primary issue is whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had the authority to auction the C.A. site measuring 52x80 meters situated at Gayatridevi Park Extension, Bangalore. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) claimed ownership and argued that the site, part of a larger area acquired under the City Improvement Act, 1945, was reserved as a civic amenity site. The BDA contended that the property could not be auctioned to recover income tax arrears from the third respondent.

2. Title and Ownership of the Civic Amenity (C.A.) Site:
The BDA asserted that it was the absolute owner of the C.A. site, which was part of 18 acres 10 guntas acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB). The land was handed over by the father of the third respondent to the CITB, as evidenced by a letter dated 22/23.8.1966. The BDA argued that the site was earmarked for a public park in the comprehensive development plan. The third respondent, however, claimed ownership and had no objection to the auction for recovering tax dues.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petition vs. Civil Suit:
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable under Rule 11 of the II Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows an aggrieved person to institute a civil suit to establish their right to the property. The BDA countered that the findings in the impugned order would disadvantage them in any civil suit, affecting their right to the C.A. site.

4. Findings of the Tax Recovery Officer:
The Tax Recovery Officer's order dated 21.11.2006 concluded that the land in question remained the property of the Maharaja of Mysore and was rightly proposed for public auction. The BDA challenged these findings, arguing that the Tax Recovery Officer was not competent to decide on the title of the property, as his role was limited to investigating claims or objections regarding possession.

5. Directions for Future Legal Proceedings:
The court noted that under Rule 11 of the II Schedule of the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer could only investigate claims or objections related to possession, not title. The court held that the petitioner (BDA) could file a civil suit to establish its right, title, and interest in the property. The court directed that the impugned order be kept in abeyance until the petitioner succeeds in the civil suit. Both parties were ordered to maintain the status quo regarding the property.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed in part. The impugned order was kept in abeyance, and the petitioner was given liberty to file a civil suit to establish its rights over the property. The court directed that the status quo be maintained until the petitioner's rights are determined by a competent court.

---