TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the third respondent, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law - As such, it is clear that the writ petition is devoid of merits - This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the present writ petition hence, it is dismissed. - W.P.No.29538 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2011 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents: Mr.J.Nayanasamy O R D E R The petitioner has stated that he is an agreement holder of an agreement for sale, in respect of the property, in Survey No.111/B, situated at Bharathidasan Street, Veerappan Chathiram, Erode, belonging to the third respondent. It has been further stated that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty. The agreement had been entered into only after it was found that there was no encumbrance, in respect of the said property. 3. It had also been stated that the petitioner had paid the full consideration to the third respondent for the purchase of the property in question in the year 2007 itself, as per the sale agreement, dated 2.5.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in question, till date. While so, the Tax Recovery Officer, Range-I, Erode, had issued an order of attachment of the property in question, due to the non payment of the tax arrears, by the third respondent, to the tune of Rs.1,76,00,957/-, even though the third respondent is owning a number of other immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it had been served on the third respondent, on 16.11.2007. 7. He had also submitted that as per Rule 51 of the Income Tax Rules 1962, the attachment of an immovable property would relate back to the date on which the notice to pay back the arrears had been served on the defaulter. Thereafter, an alienation of the property in question by the defaulter, would be void, as per Rule 16 of the Income Tax Rules,1962. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that the attachment of the property of the third respondent is illegal and void. When the third respondent had not agitated the matter, in the manner known to law, it is not open to the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
