Delhi High Court
Express Towers (P) Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 16 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 123 TAXMAN 706 Delhi
Author: S Sinha
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
This application has been filed for review of the judgment of this court dated 12-12-2001 at the instance of the owner of the property in question. By reason of the said order, while setting aside the proceeding initiated under section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was directed that the possession of the property along with the title deeds be handed over to the petitioner therein.
2. Mr. Puri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant, would submit that admittedly the writ petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant and as such he derived no title thereby.
2. Mr. Puri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicant, would submit that admittedly the writ petitioners had entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant and as such he derived no title thereby.
3. The learned counsel would contend that the income-tax authorities got possession of the properties in question from the applicant and, thus, by reason of the impugned directions, the applicant has suffered prejudice.
3. The learned counsel would contend that the income-tax authorities got possession of the properties in question from the applicant and, thus, by reason of the impugned directions, the applicant has suffered prejudice.
4. As indicated in our order dated 12-12-2001, the judgment has been rendered following a Division Bench's decision of this court in Smt. Jaspal Kaur v. Union of India (1999) 81 DLT 542 (Del).
4. As indicated in our order dated 12-12-2001, the judgment has been rendered following a Division Bench's decision of this court in Smt. Jaspal Kaur v. Union of India (1999) 81 DLT 542 (Del).
5. The applicant herein did not contest the proceedings under section 269UD, although a notice had been issued by the income-tax department to him.
5. The applicant herein did not contest the proceedings under section 269UD, although a notice had been issued by the income-tax department to him.
6. The writ petitioner deposited the amount of sale consideration. A 'no objection certificate' in Form No. 37-I as contemplated under Chapter XX-C of the Act was also issued by the applicant. The applicant herein had not questioned the unenforceability of the said agreement to sell at any point of time.
6. The writ petitioner deposited the amount of sale consideration. A 'no objection certificate' in Form No. 37-I as contemplated under Chapter XX-C of the Act was also issued by the applicant. The applicant herein had not questioned the unenforceability of the said agreement to sell at any point of time.
7. Even in the writ petition, the applicant herein had not sought to be imp leaded as a party. It was never contended that the agreement to sell for one reason or the other has become unenforceable.
7. Even in the writ petition, the applicant herein had not sought to be imp leaded as a party. It was never contended that the agreement to sell for one reason or the other has become unenforceable.
8. Once a no objection certificate had been issued and the amount has been deposited, in the event, the proceedings has been found to be not validly initiated, the vendee became entitled to possession.
8. Once a no objection certificate had been issued and the amount has been deposited, in the event, the proceedings has been found to be not validly initiated, the vendee became entitled to possession.
9. This court while passing the said order dated 12-12-2001 was not concerned with any inter se disputes between the parties. If the applicant has any grievance(s) against the writ petitioner in relation to the said agreement for sale, he can agitate the same before the appropriate forum.
9. This court while passing the said order dated 12-12-2001 was not concerned with any inter se disputes between the parties. If the applicant has any grievance(s) against the writ petitioner in relation to the said agreement for sale, he can agitate the same before the appropriate forum.
10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said order dated 12-12-2001. This review application is dismissed accordingly.
10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said order dated 12-12-2001. This review application is dismissed accordingly.
