RAM PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the CIT exercising the powers of the Tax Recovery Commissioner (Income -tax), Jalandhar, dt. 24th Jan., 1983, annexure P -8 and directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by way of mandamus to confirm and orders of the TRO, Bhatinda, annexures P -6 and P -7, dt. 2nd March, 1981, whereby he made the sale absolute and issued sales certificate in favour of the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts are that on 1st April, 1979, M/s Hari Singh (HUF), respondent No. 4, was a defaulter to the tune of Rs. 71,478 while M/s Sant Singh (HUF) was a defaulter to the tune of Rs. 18,471 of income -tax dues. M/s Hari Singh (HUF) was the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share while M/s Sant Singh (HUF) was the owner to the extent of 1/6th share, i.e., both were owners to the extent of 1/2 share in the Dal Factory, Jawaharke Road, Mansa. The other 1/2 share of the said property was owned by a third party. The ITO issued orders dt. 29th Oct., 1959. 22nd March, 1961, and 26th March, 1962, etc., to the Tax Recovery Officer (for short "the TRO"), Bhatinda, respondent No. 3, for recovering the aforesaid arrears against the defaulter -respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The TRO accordingly attached 1/2 share in the aforesaid Dal Factory, Mansa, belonging to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 along with other properties vide order dt. 20th Nov., 1961, and 10th Jan., 1962. Proclamation of the attached properties was issued on 15th May, 1968, fixing the auction for 19th/20th/21st June, 1968.

(2.) ON 24th June, 1983, notice of motion was issued in this writ petition. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 appeared and ultimately after hearing the parties, the writ petition was admitted vide order dt. 10th Oct., 1983. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed separate replies. In fact respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed joint reply while respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed separate replies.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the file.