ANILABEN ROHITBHAI MODI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate waives service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dtd. 27/1/2022 at Annexure-N and also impugned notice dtd. 31/3/2021 at Annexure-A.

(3.) The background of the facts which has narrated in the petition is that petitioner is an individual and citizen of India and was holding a parcels of land with other co-owners bearing Survey Nos.766, 777 and 786 at Village Khoraj, Taluka Sanand. The said parcels of land alongwith many others were required for public purposes and as such a notification was issued in the Extra Ordinary Gazette dtd. 7/10/2013 to acquire the same portion of lands which are narrated in the notification. In response to the said process of acquisition, the petitioner alongwith other co-owners provided the details of the land owned by them on 30/8/2013 and later on, the petitioner was served with a notice dtd. 30/12/2013 to receive consideration against the same. The petitioner alongwith other co-owners received 75% of the consideration against the acquisition of three land parcels, as indicated above, on 8/12/2015. Subsequently, the petitioner alongwith other co-owners executed an agreement to sale on 16/12/2015. Eventually, sale deeds were executed on 30/6/2017 for the sale of these lands by the petitioner alongwith other co-owners.