TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this fact, we find that there is no abrogation of the order under sub-section (1) of Section 269UD. The prayers made in this petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner not only on the ground that he has no right, title or interest in respect of the said property, but he has indulged in suppression of facts. Moreover, after termination of the agreement dated 14th December, 1990 the petitioner has never sought enforcement of the said agreement by filing a civil suit. As noted earlier, one of the original owners by notice dated 12th January, 1992 has purported to terminate the agreement dated 14th December, 1990. Hence no case is made out for interferen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... development agreement. On 1st November, 1993 the petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s.Venkatesh and Cold Storage Private Limited by which the petitioner agreed to transfer to M/s.Venkatesh Warehousing and Cold Storage Private Limited the FSI of the said property admeasuring about 35,000 sq. ft. for total consideration of ₹ 35,00,000/-. Under the agreement, it was provided that the petitioner will pay a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/- to the original owners. The said agreement was subject to no objection certificate of the original owners and clearance of the Income Tax department. 3. After issuing notice, the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the said Act ) passed an order on 24th February, 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 24th February, 1994. The substantive prayers in this petition read thus : (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ for issuing directions to the Respondents to deliver copy of the declaration to the Petitioners as required under sub-section 2 of Section 269 UD of the said Act and further declare that the purchase of the property vide order dated 24.2.1994 being No.AHD/AA/PN-609/93-94/1601 stands abrogated; (b) That the Respondents be directed to deliver possession of the immovable property as acquired by them vide order dated 24.2.1994 being No.AHD/AA/PN-609/93-94/1601; (c) That the Respondents be directed to remove the unauthorized encroacher's of the said property as acquired by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the respondents invited our attention to the documents annexed to the affidavit in reply of Smt. Hemlata Balasaheb Palke, Income Tax Officer, Pune. He submitted that from the documents annexed, it is clear that the petitioner has not even a semblance of title apart from the fact that sub-section (2) of Section 269 UD is not applicable. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. We have also heard submissions of one of the intervenors. 7. We have considered the submissions. Even according to the case of the petitioner, he is not claiming to be the owner of the subject property. He is claiming on the basis of an agreement dated 14th December, 1990 and the Power of Attorney executed on the same day. Out of the agreed co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before filing of this petition in April 2008, the petitioner had dealt with the said property by executing an agreement for sale on 8th March, 2000 in favour of Dattatraya Mahadik and in fact executed a Power of Attorney in his favour. This aspect is not brought on record by the petitioner in this petition. It is only on the basis of the said Power of Attorney that the said Dattatraya Mahadik had sold the property to one Shri Rajendra Mahadu Shitole by a registered sale deed. 10. Firstly, the petitioner had no title in respect of the property as he is claiming on the basis of an agreement for development executed by the original owners Shri Suhas Deshpande and Others. Whatever title or right he had, is completely lost in the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
