No subsisting property interest defeats challenge to vesting under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act.

A challenge to vesting under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act failed because the appellants had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit premises. They had occupied the flats only as temporary alternate accommodation during construction, and their own letter acknowledged that position; after the occupation certificate was issued, they took possession of the allotted flats. On that footing, the order under section 269UD(1) vested the property in the Central Government free from encumbrances, and the pending constitutional challenges to the statutory provisions did not affect their case. The appeal was dismissed, and the challenge to the statutory acquisition was upheld as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants retained any right, title or interest in the suit premises so as to maintain the challenge to the order under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the pendency of validity challenges to the statutory provisions before the Supreme Court affected the present appeal.

Analysis: The appellants had been permitted to occupy the premises only as temporary alternate accommodation during construction of the new building, and their own letter acknowledged that they had no right, title or interest in the flats except as such temporary accommodation. After the occupation certificate was issued, they took possession of the allotted flats and, therefore, had no surviving interest in the suit premises. Once an order is made under section 269UD(1), the property vests in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In these circumstances, the pending challenges to the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions had no bearing on the appellants' case.

Conclusion: The appellants had no enforceable right in the suit premises and the challenge to the order under section 269UD was unsustainable. The appeal failed and stood dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming vesting and rejecting the challenge to the statutory acquisition of the property was upheld, leaving no subsisting claim of the appellants in the suit premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to vesting under section 269UD cannot succeed where the challenger has no subsisting right, title or interest in the property and has already accepted only temporary alternate accommodation.

---