https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2374 The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order to quash a property transfer under Section 269-UD(1) due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioner to prove lawful possession. Despite the petitioner's claims of occupancy as a tenant, the court upheld the order to vacate the premises, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such claims. The court also dismissed a separate petition challenging an order to surrender possession based on preemptive purchase, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed with no costs awarded. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2374 The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order to quash a property transfer under Section 269-UD(1) due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioner to prove lawful possession. Despite the petitioner's claims of occupancy as a tenant, the court upheld the order to vacate the premises, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such claims. The court also dismissed a separate petition challenging an order to surrender possession based on preemptive purchase, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2374