PADMA R Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 5 to 8 in Writ Petition No. 4536 of 1988 are the appellants herein. RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 therein are respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein, and the writ petitioner is impleaded as the fourth respondent.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the fourth respondent had claimed that along with his father, he entered into an agreement of sale dated January 28, 1988, with the appellants herein and another, for purchase of a house property bearing door No. 6/104, 10th Main Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, for Rs. 20,00,000. IN terms of section 269UC(1) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the prescribed statement was filed, and on April 5, 1988, an order dated March 28, 1988, under section 269UD(1) was served intimating that the Central Government would purchase the property from the vendors for the consideration shown in the agreement. Hence, challenging the validity of section 269UD, he has filed the writ petition. Reference is also made to other similar writ petitions filed in this court and also in the Supreme Court. Pending disposal of the writ petition, he obtained stay of the order dated March 28, 1988. It is in the writ petition that Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 8993 of 1988 was filed by the appellants herein, claiming that by virtue of the interim order passed, they are put to considerable monetary loss, and that a member of the family is getting married, and further, they are interested in purchasing a property in Madras, and when neither the purchaser nor the Department are likely to pay them the sale consideration immediately, a direction may be issued to the Department to pay the balance of sale consideration to the owners of the property pending disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) WHILE entering into the agreement, the appellants having known about the existence of Chapter XXC in the Act, ought to have stipulated terms and conditions which would not involve an order being passed under section 269UD(1). Having entered into an agreement of sale, which is one that cannot be permitted under Chapter XXC of the Act, it is the appellants who will have to be blamed in the manner in which they have stipulated the terms and conditions therein. Therefore, no owner of property can ever ask the Government to pay any portion of the sale consideration, unless and until the proceedings in the court are dispossed of. If any loss is occasioned because of the conduct of the fourth respondent, it is for the appellants to take such proceedings as are available to them in law against him for indulging in litigation. Public funds cannot be taken away by an owner of property when the agreement-holder resorts to litigation of this nature.