Karnataka High Court
Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. vs Appropriate Authority And Others on 15 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: ILR1993KAR1016, [1993]202ITR887(KAR), [1993]202ITR887(KARN)
JUDGMENT
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeals is preferred against the order dated March 1, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 5683 of 1993.
2. The learned single judge has rejected the writ petition with the following observations :
"The petitioner is calling in question certain proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is neither the transaction nor the transferee. The petitioner wants to call in question the jurisdiction of the authorities to invoke the provisions of Chapter XX-C on the ground that it does not come within Chapter XX-C in the light of certain observations made by the Supreme Court. That question need not be determined by me in this proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. If at all the petitioners is entitled to leasehold rights, he can certainly protect the same by filing a civil suit.
Hence, I decline to entertain this petition. Petition is rejected."
2. Though in the writ appeal and in the writ petition the validity of the order passed by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for pre-emptive purchase of the property in question bearing No. 3, Ist Cross, J. C. Road, Bangalore, is challenged, it is not possible at accept the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to challenge the validity of that order. The appellant-petitioner only claims that he is a lessee of the premises. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India , the leasehold rights are not affected by an order of pre-emptive purchase passed under section 268UD(1) of the Income-tax Act and the pre-emptive purchase is subject to the rights of a lessee. That being so, by reason of the order passed under section 269UD, it is not possible to hold that there is an infraction of the rights of the lessee. The right that accrues to the auction purchaser is subject to the leasehold rights of the lessee in possession of the property. The auction purchaser will have to follow the law applicable to a leasehold property from the lessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single judge is not justified in directing the appellant to go to the civil Court to secure his rights. This is a case in which the appellant's possession of the property as a lessee is not disputed. Even Sri Dathu, learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, concedes that the appellant is a lessee of the premises and further submits that this fact would be mentioned in the auction notification to be published and it would also be made clear that the auction of the property in question is subject to the leasehold right of the appellant. This submission amply safeguards the interest of the appellant.
3. Accordingly, the order of the learned single judge is modified and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by us. It is also open to the Department to take such action as is permissible in law to evict the appellant from the premises even before putting up the property for sale by auction.