TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination in this appeal. One Ramesh Kumar, son of Shri Manohar Lal, resident of village Sukheranwal tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, sold agricultural land measuring 1₹ 82 kanals 11 marlas to Sarvshri Ganesha Mal and Chetan Dass, sons of Dewani Mal, vide registered sale deed dated February 8, 1977, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 30,000. The competent authority on receipt of information from the Sub-Registrar, Dabwali, in Form No. 37-G made a reference to the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Sirsa, who also acted as the Agricultural Land Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of the land sold. The Agricultural Land Valuation Officer after making enquiry submitted his report determining the fair market value of the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was done on April 3, 1978. A copy of the notice was also displayed on the notice board of the office of the competent authority as is required under section 269D(2)(b) of the Act. According to the competent authority, all the formalities under section 269D of the Act were complied with. The competent authority received objections from the transferors on February 8, 1978, and from the transferees on February 16, 1978. The objections raised included the objections regarding the service of notice under section 269D(2) being time-barred as the notices were served upon the transferor/transferees beyond nine months from the date of the sale of the property. The competent authority rejected the objections filed by the transferor and the transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees. It was held that the notices on the transferors/ transferees were caused to be served only on January 19, 1978, which were beyond the statutory period of nine months and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings including the acquisition order passed by the competent authority were bad in law which deserve to be cancelled. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed. The relevant part of section 269D of the Act reads as under : (1) The competent authority shall initiate proceedings for the acquisition, under this Chapter, of any immovable property referred to in section 269C by notice to that effect published in the Official Gazette : Provided that no such proceedings shall be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns as specified in sub-section (2)(a) of section 269D of the Act. On a reading of section 269D(1) it is clear that proceedings for acquisition under Chapter XXA of the Act get initiated by the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and thereafter notices have to be served on the transferor/transferees and on the general public by publishing the same in the locality by pasting a copy of the notice on a part of the property and in the office of the competent authority to enable them to file objections. Publication in the Official Gazette is the notice to the public in general regarding initiation of proceedings and the individual notices and publication in the locality of the notices is in the nature of secondary way of informing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed under sub-section (2) are merely reflections and copies of the notice originally published in the Official Gazette under sub-section (1). The law provides primarily and first, the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and then a replica thereof is to be served on individuals or published as laid down in sub-section (2)(b). An overall analysis of the section discloses that, apart from publication in the Gazette, the law also provides for publication in the locality where the property is situated as also affixing a copy thereof in the office of the competent authority. These are in the nature of public notices supplemental to the publication in the Official Gazette which plants presumptive knowledge of the same to every one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Any procedural defect in compliance with sub-section (2) would not affect the jurisdiction of the competent authority and would not vitiate the whole of the proceedings under the section." We respectfully agree with and follow the view taken by the full Bench of this court in Amrit Sports Industries' case [1983] 144 ITR 113, and the subsequent Division Bench judgment of this court in Mela Singh's case [1986] 161 ITR 78. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the competent authority restored. The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the dispute as it had set aside the order of the competent authority on the question of jurisdiction alone. We, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
