TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision on the legality of the application). The background to the case is being taken from the impugned order itself, wherein it has been set out in detail. 2. A property bearing plot no.32-33, Khasra no.18, situated at Rai Bahadur Duni Chand Road, Abadi Dayanand Nagar, Amritsar, is stated to have been owned by one Mohan Lal, who sold it to one Manak Chand Khanna, vide a sale deed dated 17.06.1974. The said property was acquired by the Central Government under Section 269-F(6) of the Act, vide an order of acquisition passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Acquisition Range, Amritsar, dated 17.02.1978. That order having been appealed against by Manak Chand Khanna, the appeal was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 05.10.1981. The said order was also unsuccessfully challenged before this Court though the date of the dismissal of the revision petition/writ petition and even the details thereof are not given in the impugned order, however the factum of dismissal of the petition is not in dispute as per a specific query put by this Court to petitioner no.1 (appearing in person), as also to counsel for the respondent Income Tax Department. 3. Man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court on 16.09.2008. 6. It is thereafter that the respondent Income Tax Department filed an application under Section 269-K(3) of the Act on 03.05.2010, seeking to deposit a cheque of Rs. 2,42,254/- in the Court, on the ground that the true legal heirs of Manak Chand Khanna, from whom the disputed property had been acquired, could not be 'traced out', despite best efforts. 7. The application having been conditionally allowed on 14.06.2010, with the cheque accepted and deposited subject to the decision of the legality of the application, on 06.01.2011 petitioner no.1 herein filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, seeking to implead the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), through its Superintending Engineer, Jammu Central Circle, on the ground actually it was only the said department that was the competent authority to tender and to pay the compensation, after proving on record the factum of taking over actual physical possession of the property. The said application was allowed on 28.10.2013 with the CPWD impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge, the said department having duly appeared before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion)]. On the right to receive compensation, it has been held vide the impugned order that the cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,42,254/- is payable to the legal heirs of Manak Chand Khanna, with the petitioners, Ravi Kapoor and Arun Taneja, having no right, title or interest to the said amount. 10. Before this Court, petitioner no.1 firstly submitted that the Department of Income Tax was not the competent department to even deposit compensation in respect of the suit property before the trial Court and as such, the impugned order, allowing the Income Tax Department to deposit the compensation, denying right to the petitioners, to such compensation, is wholly illegal, as actually the compensation should have been deposited by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), in terms of the letter of the Income Tax Department (Annexure P-9). He further submitted that possession of the suit property also has not been taken by the Income Tax Department. 11. He next submitted that Chapter XXA having been repealed/deleted from the Income Tax Act in the year 1986, with the suit property not having vested in the Income Tax Department, it would be deemed to be a pending proceeding even in 1986....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decided on September 16, 2008. 13. Upon query to petitioner no.1 with regard to the aforesaid facts pertaining to previous litigation, he, very fairly, did not deny the previous litigation at all, but reiterated that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Mathew Thomas (supra), with Chapter XXA of the Act having been repealed in the year 1986 (actually amended qua transfer of immovable properties after 30.09.1986), the suit property could not be deemed to be vesting in the Income Tax Department and would continue to vest in Manak Chand Khanna from whose power of attorney/legal representatives the petitioners had purchased it in the year 1991. 14. Having considered the aforesaid arguments as also the entire case history, as regards the petitioners' contention that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Mathew Thomas, the property never having vested in the Income Tax Department no compensation could be paid by that Department and hence it would continue to be owned by them (petitioners), that argument has to be rejected firstly in view of the fact that the petitioners' suit seeking a declaration that they are owners-in-possession of the suit propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereto), much before 30.09.1986. 16. The petitioners even thereafter had agitated their claim by way of a writ petition (CWP-20753-2014) before this Court, which they withdrew with no liberty to file any other proceedings, on 29.10.2014. Thus, on no ground at all, are they entitled to the suit property, in any manner whatsoever. 17. As regards whether the respondents have actual physical possession of the property or not, I find it absolutely unnecessary to go into that issue, the suit earlier filed by the petitioners being one seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property, which suit, to yet again repeat, was dismissed. Hence, if the petitioners are still in occupation of the suit property as they claim, without making any comment on the correctness of that contention (or otherwise), it needs to be stated here that such occupation is obviously illegal, with the property vesting in the respondents and in fact an order for taking possession having been passed in the year 1989, as already noticed. 18. As regards the argument of the petitioners, to the effect that it was the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and not the Department of Income Tax ....