TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petition is that Sita Wanti Chadha mother of petitioners No.1 to 3 was the owner of the property in dispute, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.1961. Late S. Gurbachan Singh Chadha husband of Sita Wanti Chadha entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights of the said property. The property was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1973. However, the same was released from acquisition in the proceedings initiated by Sita Wanti Chadha in C.A. No.258 of 1983 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as recorded in the order dated 23.8.1996 (Annexure P-5) mainly on account of construction existing thereon. Thereafter, an agreement to sell dated 23.4.2000 (Annexure P-8) was entered into between Sita Wanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son in occupation or otherwise interested in the property is entitled to be heard. In the present case, Sita Wanti Chadha was the owner in possession and her husband S. Gurbachan Singh Chadha, who entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights, had died on 1.3.1964. The property was acquired by the State of Haryana in 1973 and possession was, thereafter, restored to Sita Wanti Chadha after the said property was released from acquisition. Relevant averments are as under:- "2. That in the instant case, the immovable property in question was purchased by Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha wife of Shri Gurbachan Singh Chadha on 27.2.1961 and on the same day lease hold rights over the said property were purchased by her husband Shri Gurbachan Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection269 UE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners have no locus standi as they are neither transferor nor transferee." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It remains undisputed that after passing an order of acquiring the property on 31.8.2000, compensation was paid to Sita Wanti Chadha and the property, thus, vested in the Central Government. No steps were taken thereafter to challenge the said action till filing of a writ petition in the year 2007 which was withdrawn, followed by the present writ petition. 8. Contention that the petitioners continued to be in possession, is not borne out from the records. The same is negatived by the record. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23....