Pre-emptive purchase and void encumbrance upheld where no evidence supported tenancy or lawful occupation.

A writ challenge to pre-emptive purchase under Section 269-UD(1) and the related declaration that an encumbrance was void under Section 269-UE(1) was rejected because the petitioner produced no evidence of tenancy or lawful occupation. The authority had found that the encumbrance was created to defeat Chapter XX-C, and that factual finding was not displaced by any material before the Court. On that basis, the Court found no ground to interfere and left the order directing surrender of possession undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of pre-emptive purchase under Section 269-UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential declaration of encumbrance as void under Section 269-UE(1) could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner claimed occupancy and challenged the direction to vacate, but the authority had recorded that no evidence was produced to support the claim of tenancy or lawful occupation. The authority further found the encumbrance to have been created to defeat Chapter XX-C and, on that basis, treated it as void. In the absence of material to dislodge those findings, the Court found no basis to disturb the order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order of pre-emptive purchase and the consequential direction to surrender possession failed, and the finding against the petitioner remained undisturbed.

---