JAI KUMAR KANKARIA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a proceeding initiated under Section 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to acquisition of the property of the petitioner's undivided l/9th share in premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, and the notice issued under Section 269D(1) of the Act dated 7th of September, 1972, and the proceeding thereunder instituted by respondent No. 1 and the notice dated 25/28th of November, 1974, issued by respondent No, 2 and all proceedings thereunder. The facts are shortly as follows:

(2.) The petitioner purchased l/9th share of the premises No. 6, Little Russell Street, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. This conveyance was executed on 9th of March, 1973. A notice was issued to the petitioner on the 3rd of August, 1973, by the Valuation Officer of the I.T. Dept. stating that a reference had been made to him for determination of the fair market value of the said premises. Time was fixed for such hearing. Thereafter, a notice under Sections 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was received by the petitioner. This was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 22nd of September, 1973. A notice was issued by respondent No. 2 on 25/28th of November, 1974. whereby he requested the petitioner to show cause why the property should not be acquired as proposed by respondent No. 1. In this case, an affidavit has been affirmed by one Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty on behalf of the respondent whereby the "reason to believe" has been disclosed in para. 26 of the petition. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is based on Section 269C which I quote hereinbelow :

(3.) Dr. Pal has submitted that in this particular case three conditions were required on the basis of which such a reason to believe can be formed. He has submitted that in the present case there is no material to form such a reason to believe. The pre-condition for forming such a reason to believe are as follows :