Agreement holder lacks locus standi to challenge lawful tax attachment for vendor's arrears in writ jurisdiction.

An agreement holder of immovable property cannot challenge a lawful attachment made by the tax department for the vendor's arrears when the property is recovered under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The Court held that, because the petitioner was not a party to the recovery proceedings and was not an aggrieved person, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was unavailable. The attachment was found to have been made in accordance with law, and the absence of locus standi meant the writ petition was not maintainable and failed for want of merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether an agreement holder of immovable property can maintain a writ petition to challenge an attachment made by the Income Tax Department for the vendor's tax arrears.

Analysis: The property had been attached in recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, after notice for payment of arrears had been issued to the defaulter. The Court held that the attachment was made in accordance with law and that the petitioner, being only an agreement holder and not a party to the recovery proceedings, could not question the departmental action. The Court also noted that the vendor had not pursued any remedy in the manner known to law and that the petitioner could not be treated as an aggrieved person for the purpose of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the agreement holder and was rejected as devoid of merit.

Final Conclusion: A person claiming only under an agreement for sale cannot defeat a lawful attachment made for recovery of tax arrears and cannot invoke writ jurisdiction in the absence of locus standi.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement holder, not being a party to the recovery proceedings and not an aggrieved person, has no locus standi to challenge a lawful attachment made under the tax recovery provisions.

---