9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have gone through the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above facts and circumstances of this case, the only point that arises for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner herein as seen from the affidavit are as follows : The petitioner herein is a registered society and is running a school and the said school is being run in layout No. 44/58 issued by the Joint Director of Town Planning covering Paimash Nos. 258/ 3, 259, 260/1, 263/10, 273/1. The layout is called Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing the school for property tax by the second respondent. As it was pointed out to them that educational institution would be exempted from the assessment and, therefore, the municipality withdrew the said assessment. The fact that the municipality had taken steps to assess the building to tax is a clear proof that the petitioner institution is treated as the owner of the school building in the municipal records. That being so a notice was sent by the first respondent on March 30, 1992, bringing the property to auction for the income-tax due from the erstwhile land owner T. P. Sathiyanathan. The auction was fixed on May 27, 1992, and in the auction notice, the property described as (1) i.e., five grounds in S. No. 29 of Hasthinapuram Village in Purushotham Nagar, Chrompet, and (2) 15 grounds in S. No. 29 of Hasthinapuram Village, Purushotham Nagar, Chrompet. On knowing this, the petitioner submitted a protest letter on May 6, 1992, bringing to the notice of the Income-tax Department the illegality in bringing up their property for auction for the dues of the erstwhile land owner. Afterwards the petitioner met the authorities personally and explained to them the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s handed over to the petitioner-society and the petitioner-society has established a school duly recognised and that the school has taken possession of the property in July, 1972, and is in possession and enjoyment of the property, and that, therefore, it is contended by the petitioner herein that in the light of the above facts, the first respondent cannot proceed against the property of the school for the income-tax dues of the erstwhile land owner. It is also argued by the petitioner that the land owner had parted with possession of the property by selling the plots in the layout to third parties and had handed over possession of the place reserved for public purpose to the Pallavaram Municipality and reserved for roads. Under these circumstances, he cannot be considered as the owner of the property in question as on date and that,. therefore, the Department cannot bring the property which is not belonging to the defaulter by way of sale. It is also contended by the petitioner that the entire proceedings are invalid due to the non-application of mind and exercise of power and this auction is totally without jurisdiction and the notice is totally defective. It is also the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defaulter and that there is no document showing that the property in question stands in the name of the petitioner-society. Therefore, it is the strong contention of the Department that the defaulter T.P. Sathiyanathan continued to be the owner of the land in question and the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest therein particularly when as stated earlier by the respondents that no document has been produced by it transferring the area in question to it by the owner. Further it is also contended by the respondent-Department that if the petitioner-society is really interested in the said land, nothing prevented it from paying up the arrears so as to get the property released from attachment and thereafter obtain a valid document of title in its favour or bid at the auction and purchase the same in its own right. Therefore, it is their categoric case that so long as the property continues to be that of the defaulter and the petitioner is not able to produce any document in its favour to establish that it is the owner of the land in question, no exception can be taken to the sale of the property by the Income-tax Department for realising the arrears of tax due from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art a school and in turn the said Pallavaram Municipality handed it over to the petitioner-society to start a school and accordingly they have started a school and are running the same. Even though the above aspects are admitted by the first respondent-Department, they have sent a notice even on March 30, 1992, to the petitioner herein stating that the said property would be brought to auction on May 27, 1992, for the income-tax dues from the erstwhile owner T. P. Sathiyanathan. On this, the petitioners gave explanations to the Department that at present they are the owners of the same and they have been in continuous possession of the said land openly for more than 20 years. But such a request was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners caused lawyer notice to the Department reiterating their stand. But there was no reply. Thereafter, after a lapse of about three years the first respondent issued a similar notice on February 12, 1996, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has come forward with the present writ petition. The claim of ownership of the petitioner herein over the property in question has been rejected by the Department on the ground that no registered deed ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since 1972, regarding the property in question all the municipal documents are also in the name of the petitioner-society. It is also not the case of the respondent-Department that their defaulter the erstwhile owner of the property in question is having any claim over the same. That apart it is admitted even by the respondent-Department that in the sanctioned layout it is seen that an area of about 20 grounds was reserved for the school. That being so even the erstwhile owner also cannot have any right whatsoever over such a public place and the classification of the public place can never be changed. In such circumstances as such there is no documentary proof with the respondent-Department to contend that their defaulter-the erstwhile owner of the property in question Sathiyanathan alone continues to be the owner of the property and that, therefore, their action is in order and it cannot be interfered with. Further, it is significant to note that as per rule 48 only the immovable property of the defaulter can be brought to sale after its attachment. But when there is no evidence before the respondent that the property in question is owned by the defaulter, their action in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
