SOONI RUSTAM MEHTA Vs. INCOME TAX DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners; who claimed, to be executors, under the will of late Mrs. Z.R Ranji, have filed the present writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the appropriate authority, income-Tax Department, Bangalore (1st respondent) directing him (i) to make a declaration under Sec. 269 UH (2) of the Income-Tan Act, 1961, that the order passed by him on 16-2-1990 stands abrogated with effect from 1-4-1990 and the property stands re-vested in the petitioners and to grant copies of the said order and also deliver back possession of the premises and further issue a certificate of no-objection under Sec. 269 UL (3).

(2.) The following facts have to be stated: Mrs. Z.R. Ranji who is said to be the owner of the immoveable property in Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad, died on 29-10-1988. It is said that she had executed a will on 22-5-1987 and appointed the petitioners as executors and had directed them to dispose of the property and distribute the sale proceeds among certain named charities. It is said that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale dated 14-12-89 with the 3rd respondent for a consideradent of Rs. 15,60,000/-. Inasmuch as the apparent consideration was above Rs. 10 lakhs, the petitioners submitted the said agreement to the 1st respon- tion at Bangalore as required by Sec. 269 UC of the Act. By an order under Sec. 269 UD (1) the 1st respondent ordered the purchase of the said property by the Central Government for the discounted price of Rs. 15,31,640/- and the property stood vested in the 2nd respondent under Section 269 UE (i) with effect from 16-2-1990 free from all encumbrances. The petitioners were directed to deliver possession of the property to the 2nd respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. At that stage the petitioners' vendors filed W.P. No. 2978/90 questioning the validity of the said order. It appears that the provisions of the Act relating to compulsory acquisition have been challenged in the said writ petition. That writ petition was admitted on 8-3-1990 and is still pending. Possession of the property was taken by the 2nd respondent on 22-3-1990.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent had neither tendered the money to the petitioners as required by Sec. 269 UG (2) nor deposited the money in accordance with Sec. 269 UG (3) and that therefore there was no valid deposit as per the provisions of the Act and the property stands re-vested in the petitioners under Section 269-UH.