UNION OF INDIA Vs. JANAB MUKHTAR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the Union of India seeks this Court's intervention, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with an order passed by the collector, 24-Parganas refusing the prayer of this applicant for appointment of a Receiver of the two properties -- premises No. 48 Metcalfe Street, Calcutta and a house known as Alexandra Court hearing premises No. 60/l Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. It was stated in the application for appointment of a Receiver that Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed was liable for an amount of Rs. 11,83,629-3-0 on account of assessment of income tax made under the Income Tax Act and penalties imposed on him, that though a number of certificate cases had been started against him for recovery of this amount no recovery had been made, that if the properties were sold in certificate proceedings they were not likely to fetch adequate prices and that in these circumstances it was just and convenient that a Receiver should be appointed in execution for the purposes of recovery of these arrears. At the date of the application, Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed was already dead. Hid son Mukhtar Ahmed who was impleaded in the application as opposite party No. 2 appeared in court and filed a petition of objection in which he contended that these properties had belonged to him even during the life-time of his father and were not liable for the arrears.

(2.) The Collector took notice of the, fact that long before the death of Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed, Mukhtar Ahmed had been treated by the Income tax Department as the owner of the properties in question and was assessed for the income tax arising out of the said premises for some years and he considered the application of the Income Tax Department to be "most illogical". Finally he observed that the income Tax Department "cannot therefore say that the premises mentioned by them are clearly in seisin of this Court in respect of the proceedings against the father Shri Hafiz Shamsed Ahmed" and rejected the application.

(3.) The sole ground that has been stated to induce the Court to interfere with the order passed by the Collector under Article 227 of the Constitution is that the Collector was bound to accept as correct the conclusion recorded by the Income Tax Investigation Commission in its report submitted to the Central Government that during the years in respect of which the arrears have arisen Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed was the owner of these properties and that Mukhtar Ahmed was not. It is worth mentioning that two cases, the case of Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed as well as the case of Mukhtar Ahmed were referred to the Investigation Commission by the Central Government under Section 5 and one joint report was sent by the Investigation Commission to the Central Government. Paragraph 23 of the report reads thus: