Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Nazeer vs District Collector

Author: K.Vinod Chandran

Bench: K.Vinod Chandran

       

  

  

 
 
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

           FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2014/20TH ASHADHA, 1936

                       WP(C).No. 17524 of 2014 (M)
                       ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
--------------

       1. NAZEER,
           AGED 42 YEARS,
           S/O.PEERUKANNU,
           VANIYAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEMOM.

       2. SIRAJUDHEEN,
           S/O.PEERUKANNU,
           VANIYAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEMOM.

       BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
               SRI.K.BIJU NARAYAN

RESPONDENT(S) :
--------------

       1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
           KODAPPANAKKUNNU,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

       2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (NH),
           LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (NH), PMG,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

       3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS),
           OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
           KOWDIAR,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

       BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX &
       BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN.

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION  ON
       11-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:




rvs/

WP(C).No. 17524 of 2014 (M)



                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.04.2013 TO 1ST PETITIONER UNDER
                 RULE 11(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION RULES.

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.04.2013 TO PETITIONERS UNDER
                 RULE 11(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION RULES.

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE         COPY OF   THE  JUDGMENT   DATED  23.08.2013 IN W.P.
                 (C)NO.20572/2013 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE         COPY OF   THE  JUDGMENT   DATED  04.11.2013 IN W.P.
                 (C)NO.26926/2013 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE         COPY OF   THE  JUDGMENT   DATED  06.06.2014 IN W.P.
                 (C)NO.7238/2014 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2014 IN W.P.(C)NO.322 OF
                 2014 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------

       NIL.


                                                      /true copy/



                                                      P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs/



             K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             W.P.(C).No. 17524 of 2014
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated 11th July, 2014
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                        JUDGMENT

The issue raised in this writ petition is with respect to the acquisition for widening of Karamana-Kalikkavila road and the tax deduction at source, from the award amounts, as mandated under Section 194 LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of the petitioners is that they have under sub-section(2) of Section 11 entered into negotiated sale agreements with the District Level Purchase Committee, constituted by the Government and subsequently an award was passed under sub-section(2) of Section 11, taking it out of the net of a compulsory acquisition. The petitioners rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which reliance was distinguished by the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India( Taxes), on the WP(C).17524/14 2 ground that the facts clearly distinguish the two acquisitions and the present acquisition is initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award is also passed under the L A Act.

2. The issue with respect to an award passed under sub-section(2) of Section 11 has been considered by this Court in the judgment delivered in a batch of writ petitions W.P(C) No.4209 of 2014 and connected cases. The same principle would apply herein also. The very same declaration passed in the earlier case would apply squarely to the petitioners also. The revenue authorities are hence restrained from making any tax deduction at source as provided under 194 LA but however, with liberty to make such deduction under Section 194 IA, wherever it is permissible. Since there is joint ownership the compensation with respect to each of the WP(C).17524/14 3 brothers would have to be determined to compute the tax liability, if any.

Writ petition allowed.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//