2020 (3) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DGMENT PER P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Challenge is against the correctness of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. 2. As a matter of fact, the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 04.12.2019, causing provisional attachment of the immovable property in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (for 'the Act'). Various averments have been raised, both factual and legal, which have been sought to be rebutted by the Respondents by filing return. 3. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single judge observed that it is not a fit case to call for interference as the provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e second ground, it is stated that no prior approval of the Approving Authority was obtained in writing as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Act, 1988. The learned standing counsel for the Department says that in paragraph 14 of Annexure-P/1 order, which is the same as Annexure-R/3 produced along with reply, it is stated that, the said order has been passed with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax (DPO) Raipur, who is the Approving Authority under the Act, 1988. It is pointed out that factual aspect has been asserted in the reply supported by an affidavit. This however shows that the approval taken from the Approving Authority on 10.10.2019 is only an approval in terms of proceedings under Section 23 of the ....