1987 (11) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ouse under one Godavari Devi (0. P. No. 4) 0. P. No. 4 sold the property to one Basudev Sahu (0. P. No. 3) under a registered sale deed dated July 5, 1976, for Rs. 24,000 which, according to the petitioners, who were also contending purchasers, was undervalued, its market value being above Rs. 50,000. A petition was accordingly filed by the petitioners and opposite party No. 3 before the Collector, Mayurbhanj, for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that it was undervalued. Ultimately, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bhubaneswar (O. P. No. 2), initiated proceedings under section 269C of the Act for acquisition of the property on the ground of low valuation for evading tax. Notices were also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, therefore, see some provisions of the Act which are relevant. " Person interested " has been defined in section 269A(g) as follows: "' person interested ' in relation to any immovable property includes all persons claiming, or entitled to claim, an interest in the compensation payable on account of the acquisition of that property under this Chapter." According to the above definition, only such persons will be deemed to be interested persons in relation to the immovable property in question as have a claim or interest in the compensation payable on account of the acquisition. Obviously, a tenant has got no such right or interest in the compensation, although he may be entitled to notice being a " person in occupation " of the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had appeared before the competent authority and without hearing him, the acquisition proceedings were dropped. When the matter was brought to the High Court, it was held that the competent authority was not bound to furnish any reason to the petitioner for dropping the proceedings and there was no lis between the tenant and the competent authority. Deciding the principle of law broadly, it was held that if the Department had erred in dropping the proceedings, it was not for the High Court to interfere at the instance of a tenant who was really unconcerned with the acquisition proceedings which were administrative in character. The matter may, perhaps, be different if the competent authority in a case decides to the contrary, namely, to acqu....