TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as " the Act ") in respect of the premises which is in his occupation. It is averred that the petitioner had offered to his original landlord sum of Rs. 4,41,000 as consideration for the premises and expressed his intention to purchase the same and entered into an agreement in that behalf. But the landlord instead of selling the same to the petitioner, sold it to the 4th respondent by a deed of sale in which the consideration has been shown as Rs. 2,49,000 only. The petitioner, therefore, brought this to the notice of the concerned authorities under the Act as a consequence of which proceedings were initiated under Chap. XX-A of the Act. The petitioner was notified of the acquisition proceedings commenced against respondent No. 4, as h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard before any order is passed in terms of s. 269F of the Act. I am of the view that the contentions advanced by the petitioner are not well founded. The purpose of Chap. XX-A of the Act is to penalise transactions in immovable properties which have been grossly undervalued with the object of evading payment of tax on income by way of capital gains. The nexus in the proceedings exists only between the State on the one hand and the transferor and/or the transferee on the other. If this fact is borne in mind, it is easy to eliminate the interests of third persons, even though such third persons may have some kind of interest in the property either by way of filing objections which are specifically provided for under s. 269E(1) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r informers who have passed on the information of undervaluation of the property to the Department. Interested persons to whom the reference is made in the aforementioned sub-clause has reference only to persons who have interest in title to the property or in respect of the right to receive the compensation, if the acquisition is completed, culminating in the taking over of the property in accordance with an order passed under sub-s. (6) of s. 269F of the Act. If there is not going to be an acquisition, then the occupant need not be heard. The occupant is evidently required to be notified in order to put him on guard, that as consequence of the acquisition his leasehold right will stand extinguished. Beyond that there is no other obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is true as contended for the petitioner that the tenant has a right to be heard in terms of s. 269F of the Act only if the Department pursues the acquisition proceedings. If it abandons for whatever reasons, then it cannot be said that the right to be heard in question by the occupant by virtue of cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 269D of the Act subsists. Therefore, it is of no consequence even if a right is conferred, as that right is only a contingent right and not an absolute unqualified right. For the reasons I have given above and in the light of the discussion as above, I am of the view that there is no lis between the petitioner herein and respondents Nos. 1 and 2. If the Department has erred in dropping the proceedings, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
