Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gulab Singh Yadav Alias Ramu Ram Alias ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 22 October, 2018
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 16304/2018
Gulab Singh Yadav Alias Ramu Ram Alias Ramu Son Of Bru Lal
Alias Virdhi Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through Its Secretary
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Adv. Ms. Charu Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nathu Lal Agrawal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 22/10/2018 Matter comes up on the misc. application No.1/2018 for impleadment as party-respondents filed by the applicant-Ram Singh Yadav @ Ramu Ram @ Ramu S/o Late Sh. Braj Lal Yadav and Smt. Savita Yadav W/o Sh. Ram Singh Yadav.
Mr. Anant Kasliwal, counsel for the petitioner has raised objection about impleadment of applicants as party/respondents. Learned counsel has submitted that in the instant petition proceedings are carried out in pursuance of notice issued under Section 26(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Amendment Act, 2016 are questioned.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has further prayed in the instant petition that the order purported to be passed under Sections 24(3) & 24(4) of the Act of 2016 may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicants cannot become party-respondents in the instant petition as the petitioner has not sought any relief against the applicants.
(2 of 2) [CW-16304/2018] Per contra, Mr. Nathu Lal Agrawal, counsel for the applicants has submitted that proceedings have been initiated under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Amendment Act, 2016 and the notice given on 23.01.2018, makes a reference of Initiating Officer, Benamidar and Beneficial owner(s) and further the name of Gulab Singh Yadav has been mentioned in the said application against the column No. 4 of iv as the person who claims property. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicants are necessary parties as their rights are going to be affected in case, any order is passed in pursuance of proceedings which are initiated under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Amendment Act, 2016.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the petition filed by the petitioner is in respect of proceedings carried out under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2016 and further issue is with respect to action being initiated by the Income Tax Authorities.
The applicants are neither necessary nor proper party in the instant petition and as such their application is dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants may be permitted to pursue the legal remedy available to them. This Court finds that it is for the applicants to decide as to what proceedings are to be taken by them in respect of the notice which has been issued, however, they cannot be made party- respondents in the instant petition.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/22 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)