INCOME-TAX OFFICER Vs. SHANTI PARSHAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Hissar, dated May 30, 1986, whereby while holding that the civil court had the jurisdiction in the matter, it has injuncted the Income-tax Officer, Hissar, not to "assess the plaintiff for capital gains in respect of the said compensation amount though he can do so in respect of the said income of the plaintiffs which has no concern in the said enhanced amount of compensation". In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, the following undisputed facts deserve to be noticed.

(2.) RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE's land measuring 192 kanals and 2 marlas was acquired by the State Government in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on January 30, 1973, and they were dispossessed thereof on October 5, 1973, after the pronouncement of the award under Section 11 of the said Act. The assessees sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act against that award and as a result of the same, the Additional District Judge, Hissar, vide his judgment dated January 23, 1979, enhanced the amount of compensation to a considerable extent. The respondents have concededly received this compensation including the interest awarded thereupon. They claim to have invested this entire amount in the form of National Rural Development Bonds and this, according to their stand, absolves them from the liability to pay any capital gains tax under the Income-tax Act. Concededly, the respondents as well as the acquiring authorities have preferred appeals in this court against the award of the Additional District Judge and the same are still pending. In a nutshell, the question of fairness of the compensation allowed to the respondent-assessee is sub judice.

(3.) DURING the course of the abovenoted proceedings, the respondents filed a Suit No. 757-C impugning the entire acquisition proceedings and that suit of theirs was decreed on March 7, 1983, by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hissar. The State's appeal against that decree is again pending in the court of the Additional District Judge. In other words, the legality of the acquisition proceedings is also sub judice at the moment.