TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1957 (4) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing an order of the Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur dated 17th October, 1955, dismissing certain objections filed by the petitioner before him. There is a firm named Sarveshwar Bhagwati Pd. with its office at Generalganj, Kanpur. Sri Sarveshwar, husband of the petitioner, is one of the partners of the firm. Sales t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional Collector dismissed all the objections by the impugned order dated the 17th of October, 1955. As regards the objections filed by the petitioner, the Additional Collector says that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that the house was purchased from her stridhan property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Additional District Magistra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we are not prepared to permit the learned counsel to take this ground at this late stage of the proceedings. We may further state that under sub-section (3) of section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act it is open to the State Government to issue orders authorising an Additional Collector to exercise and perform the powers and duties of a Collector. Sub-section (4) then says: "This Act and every....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods reason for holding that it was not her personal property and that she was a benamidar for her husband. The question whether the petitioner is the owner of the attached property or she is merely a benamidar for her husband and the property belongs to her husband, is a disputed questions of fact. The Additional Collector has held that she is merely a benamidar for her husband. A question like....