LAWS(DLH)-1998-2-24

JASPAL KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 13, 1998
JASPAL KAUR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 27.4.95 (Annexure-I) passed by the Appropriate Authority (under the Income-tax Act, 1961) (respondent No.2) and a direction to it to grant `No Objection Certificate' under Section 269-UL(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter `the Act' - for short).

(2.) The property forming subject matter of the petition is plot No.115, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. It is owned by Smt.Anita Surjit Singh, the respondent No.3. On 25.10.89, the respondent No.3 entered into an agreement to sell the plot to the four petitioners herein for a consideration of Rs.15 lacs. On 5.11.89, the petitioners and the respondent No.3 filed a statement (Annexure P-4) under Section 269 UC of the Act with the Appropriate Authority, the respondent No.2. On 22/23.1.90 the respondent No.2 passed an order directing the `filing' of the statement i.e. consigning the same to the record room without any action thereon. The Appropriate Authority formed an opinion that the plot was allotted by the Chandigarh Administration to the predecessor-in-title of the vendor subject to certain terms and conditions restraining its alienation for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of construction thereon, which term having not been complied with, the transferor was estopped from transferring the property. The order of the Appropriate Authority was preceded by certain enquiries having been made with the Estate Officer. To put it in other words, the Appropriate Authority formed an opinion that the transferor being not entitled to transfer the plot for having breached the terms of the original agreement, the object of the agreement was unlawful and as the transfer - if materialised - would defeat the provisions of law, the same was void. The Appropriate Authority concluded :-

(3.) It appears that the petitioners did not lay a timely challenge to the abovesaid order and instead on 25.4.90 filed a fresh statement in Form No.37-I before the Appropriate Authority which statement is nothing, but a mere duplicate or repetition of the same Form 37- I which was filed on 25.10.89. On 8.6.90, the appropriate authority passed an order under Section 269 UD(1) of the Act ordering the purchase by the Central Government of the plot forming subject matter of agreement. This order was challenged by the petitioners before Delhi High Court by filing CW 1970/90.