BASUDEV SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the vires of the provisions of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 45 of 1972, by which with effect from November 15, 1972, a new Chapter being XX-A was added to the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") providing for acquisition of immovable properties in certain cases of transfer to counteract evasion of tax.

(2.) PETITIONER purchased the land covered by plot numbers 1515/A/1 and 1515/A/2 in holding No. 6 including a pucca building standing thereon for a consideration of Rs. 55,000 under a registered sale deed dated 30th of January, 1973, from opposite party No. 6, the owner of the property. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 4) being the competent authority as provided under Section 269A(b) of the Act issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 269D(1) on April 21, 1973, for acquisition of the said property. At that stage the petitioner made this application to this court challenging the vires of the new Chapter on the following grounds :

(3.) CAN it be said that the legislation introducing Chapter XX-A of the Act is in furtherance of these principles ? Undoubtedly, land is a scarce goods and is an important factor in the process of production. There can be little doubt that it is a material resource of the community. It does not require much of argument to appreciate the position that the mischief which the Amending Act of 1972, seeks to hit and eradicate is concentration of land in the hands of a few. Parliament realised that ownership of lands was being concentrated in the hands of a few and while on the one hand there was avoidance of tax and other public dues, on the other by the surreptitious process acquisition of lands resulting in concentration of the economic power in the hands of few citizens was going on. One of the principal objectives of the impugned law is to check that evil. The impugned provisions, therefore, squarely come within the ambit of Article 31-C of the Constitution and even if we accept the petitioner's contention that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property conferred under clause (f) of Sub-article (1) of Article 19 is affected, he is not entitled to raise any challenge. These two contentions of Mr. Mohanty must, therefore, fail. Contention No. 2: