Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We have heard Mr. Manikant Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jayant Nikhra, Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Naman Nagrath and Mr. H.K. Upadhyay for the respondent No. 2

9. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the respondent No. 2 had disclosed his income at the time of his filing nomination papers and compared to the said disclosure, properties owned by him at this stage is enormous and acquisition of such property would go a long way to expose the abuse of power. It is contended by him that registered sale deeds per se would reveal that the respondent No. 2 has abused his power to acquire the property and being a public servant he is liable to disclose the sources of his income. Submission of Mr. Sharma is that the stance taken by the respondent No. 2 that there is HUF and money accrued from the agricultural income has been invested for purchase of other land properties cannot be given credence to inasmuch as the agricultural income is absolutely meager and in any case it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 2 to file income tax return when he has purchased such valuable properties. It is canvassed by Mr. Sharma that the allotment of the land in favour of the relatives of the respondent No. 2 by Krishi Upaj Mandi is perceptibly an abuse of power and cannot be countenanced in a democracy which is governed by Rule of Law. It is urged by him that ostentatious and unwarranted show of wealth in the marriage of his son, decoration of residential premises and allotment of premises at Harda Town beyond the rules are concrete instances of abuse of power. It is vehemently contended that it is a fit case where direction should be issued to CBI to investigate into the matter so that the truth can come out and the respondent No. 2 can be proceeded in accordance with law.

10. Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a public interest litigation of this nature as it has the tenor and character of score settling litigation or to put it differently would amount to personal interest litigation. It has also the contour of publicity litigation because the petitioner has worked as proxy of one Rajesh Patel. It is urged by him that the respondent No. 2 is a part of HUF or not and whether the property is self acquired cannot be dealt with in a writ petition of this nature. It is his further proponement that the respondent No. 2 was under no obligation to file income tax return under the Income Tax Act as the entire income is agricultural income. It is contended by Mr. Tankha that under the provisions of Income Tax Act as the respondent No. 2 does not have any other income beside the agricultural income the provisions of the Income Tax Act are not applicable and, therefore, no return is to be filed. The Learned Counsel referred to departmental circular No. 493 dated 21.8.1997 which stipulates that the returns showing income below taxable limit are to be treated as 'non est' return. Mr. Tankha has argued that the assessee in his capacity as co-parcener of HUF is not required to file return in respect of agricultural income in the light of the statutory provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is canvassed by Mr. Tankha that the directions to CBI for investigation cannot be issued in a routine manner and the same has to be directed on certain conditions being satisfied and regard being had to the gravity of the matter and the concept of rare occasion which are not remotely noticeable in the case at hand and, therefore, the prayer is absolutely misconceived and hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

12. First we shall deal with the issue relating to locus standi of the petitioner as the same has been raised with immense vehemence by Mr. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the second respondent. Learned senior counsel has combatted the assertions made in the petition on the ground that the petitioner has a criminal record; that he has been used as a proxy by one Rajesh Patel; that certain information have been obtained by Rajesh Patel and handed over to the petitioner who has assumed the role of a pro bono publico at the instance of a person who has an axe to grind against the respondent No. 2; and that the lis cannot come under the public interest litigation as is understood. Having regard to the aforesaid factual scenario, it is apposite to refer to certain citations in the field.

24. As far as allotment of house at Harda is concerned, it is only put forth that there is no rule or provision for allotment of such quarters at Harda. In our considered opinion, as presently the same does not really deserve to be adverted to in a public interest litigation of this nature inasmuch as nothing has been brought on record how the same is illegal or irregular. Hence, we restrain ourselves from adverting to the said facet.

25. The next aspect relates to purchase of property in the names of wife, son, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, brother and brother's wife. On a perusal of Annexure-P/2 it appears that 5.611 hectares of land has been purchased in the name of Sudeep Patel, son of the respondent No. 2 on payment of consideration of Rs. 8,91,000/-. As per sale-deed contained in Annexure-P/3 2.02 hectares of land has been purchased in the name of Smt. Rekha, wife of the respondent No. 2 on payment of consideration of Rs. 3,88,000/-. It is perceivable from Annexure-P/4 that 5.771 hectares of land was purchased in the name of Sandeep Patel, another son of the respondent No. 2 on payment of consideration of Rs. 10,93,100/-. On a perusal of Annexure-P/5 it is noticeable that a sum of Rs. 11,85,300/-has been spent for purchase of land admeasuring 5.768 hectares in the name of Smt. Kesharbai, mother-in-law of the said respondent. On a scrutiny of Annexure-P/7 it is vivid that Rs. 6,89,600/-has been utilised towards consideration for purchase of 2.17 acre of land in the name of the wife and some Ors. Annexure-P/7 and AnnexureP/ 8 show purchase of land admeasuring 4.80 acres and 6.68 acres for a sum or Rs. 13,86,600/-and 20,08,500/-respectively in the names of wife and Ors. Annexure-P/9, another sale-deed, shows that towards purchase of an area admeasuring 1.43 acres Rs. 1,84,000/-has been paid and the said transaction has been made in favour of the brother of the second respondent. Annexure-P/10 shows purchase of 5.77 acres of land on payment of Rs. 2,57,000/-in the names of his wife and the brother. Thus, the total land purchased is 68,776 acres and the amount of consideration is Rs. 80,83,100/-and stamp duty of Rs. 7,34,680/has been paid thereon for the purpose of registration. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 88,17,780/-has been spent. Proponement of Mr. Tankha is that the entire purchase of the properties have been done from common pool of HUF funds by the present Karta of the family, namely, Shri Harnath Patel. It is urged by him that the Karta in his own wisdom has decided to purchase these assets in names of different members of the family keeping in view the possibility of future partition and family welfare. Properties have been purchased by Karta in a manner in which the properties falling in respective share of the members of the family would already be defined to a great extent for the future. It is also submitted that after being issued notice in this petition, the answering respondent and his family members have furnished the entire details of their agricultural land holdings and also estimates of their income derived from agriculture to a Chartered Accountant for verification. It is submitted that the details furnished regarding the agricultural income have been examined by the said Chartered Accountant, who has also certified the same and has given his opinion that the cash inflow in the form of agricultural income on the basis of land holdings of family, as being claimed by the respondent and his family members is well justified and acceptable.