Co-operative society membership alone does not create an interest in property for compulsory acquisition notice purposes.

Membership of a co-operative society does not by itself make individual members "persons interested" in the society's immovable property for compulsory acquisition proceedings under the Income-tax Act. That interest must be shown from the society's legal structure and bye-laws, especially where the society is of a tenant-ownership or tenant-co-partnership type. On the material discussed, no bye-laws or facts established that the members had an existing interest in the land, so individual notice was not required. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to treat the acquisition orders as invalid for want of notice to each member.

---

---

Issues: Whether the individual members of the transferee co-operative societies were "persons interested" in the immovable property so as to require service of notice under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the acquisition orders were vitiated for want of such notice.

Analysis: The expression "person interested" in section 269A(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is an inclusive definition and must be applied in the context of the rights created by the relevant co-operative society and its bye-laws. A member of a co-operative society does not automatically acquire an interest in the society's immovable property merely by reason of membership or contribution to its funds. Whether such an interest exists depends upon the nature of the society and the rights conferred under its bye-laws, particularly whether it is a tenant-ownership society or a tenant-co-partnership society. On the material before the Court, no bye-laws or other facts were produced to show that the societies were of the tenant-co-partnership type or that any member had an existing interest in the lands on the relevant date. In the absence of such material, the members could not be treated as persons having an interest in the property for the purpose of compulsory notice. The transferee societies themselves had raised the objection, although no individual member complained of non-service, and the Tribunal should not have entertained the objection on that basis.

Conclusion: The individual members were not shown to be persons interested requiring individual notice under section 269D(1), and the Tribunal erred in holding the acquisition orders invalid on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Membership of a co-operative society does not by itself make the members "persons interested" in the society's immovable property for acquisition proceedings; such interest must be established from the society's legal structure and bye-laws.

---