Attached property sale challenge fails where an agreement to purchase creates no legal interest and writ relief cannot bypass the statutory bar.

An agreement to purchase immovable property already attached under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act does not create a legally recognised interest for rule 61 purposes, because the defaulter cannot validly deal with the attached property after service of notice without permission. The proposed purchaser was therefore not a "person whose interests are affected by the sale" and could not seek to set aside the auction sale. The Court further held that a person barred by the statutory scheme cannot bypass that bar through writ jurisdiction to obtain indirectly what the statute does not permit directly; the writ challenge was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person who had entered into an agreement to purchase immovable property attached under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a "person whose interests are affected by the sale" and could invoke rule 61 to set aside the auction sale; (ii) Whether such a person, if barred from invoking rule 61, could nevertheless challenge the sale in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a person who had entered into an agreement to purchase immovable property attached under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a "person whose interests are affected by the sale" and could invoke rule 61 to set aside the auction sale.

Analysis: Rule 61 permits an application only by the Income-tax Officer, the defaulter, or a person whose interests are affected by the sale. The Court held that the expression refers to a legally recognised interest. Under rule 16(1), after service of notice under rule 2, the defaulter cannot validly deal with the property without permission of the Tax Recovery Officer. An agreement to sell an attached property, therefore, does not create any enforceable interest in favour of the proposed purchaser. The Court also held that the words "otherwise deal with" in rule 16(1) are of wide amplitude and are not confined by ejusdem generis, and that the heading of the provision cannot cut down its plain meaning.

Conclusion: The proposed purchaser was not a person competent to invoke rule 61, and the sale could not be set aside at his instance.

Issue (ii): Whether such a person, if barred from invoking rule 61, could nevertheless challenge the sale in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that a person who is not entitled to challenge the sale under the statutory scheme cannot acquire a better right by resorting to writ jurisdiction to do indirectly what the statute does not permit directly. Since the claim was purely private and no public interest issue arose, writ relief was not available.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: A purchaser under an agreement to buy attached immovable property acquires no legally recognised interest for purposes of rule 61, and the statutory bar cannot be circumvented through writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to purchase property attached under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not create a legal interest in the property, and a person claiming under such an agreement is not a "person whose interests are affected by the sale" for rule 61 purposes.

---