Balram Meghwal vs Adjudicating Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 18574 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16949/2021

1. Balram Meghwal S/o Shri Ishwar Ram Meghwal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o M P Road, Behind Manoj Dal Mill, Sarvoday Basti Bikaner 334001.

2. Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, Ground Floor, Room No. 2, A-21, Sadul Ganj, Bikaner Through Its Director Shri Ashok Kumar Modi.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (The Benami Prohibition Amendment Act, 2016), B Wing, 9Th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003.

2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room No. 103J, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana through VC

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

07/12/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating

Authority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Adjudicating Authority').

2. Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended

that during the proceedings the petitioners have raised objection

that the proceedings are barred by limitation, yet the same has

not been decided by the Adjudicating Authority and the matter

was adjourned to 15.12.2021.

(2 of 2) [CW-16949/2021]

3. It is argued that objection of the limitation is a pure question

of law and does not require any scrutiny of facts and hence, it was

required of the Adjudicating Authority to first decide the

preliminary issue.

4. Learned counsel placed various judgments in which it has

been held that question of limitation should be decided as a

preliminary issue.

5. In the opinion of this Court, only a statute bifurcates the

proceedings and enjoins upon Adjudicating Authority to decide the

question of limitation as a preliminary issue and direction to decide

the questions/objections in piecemeal cannot be given by this

Court.

6. In absence of any such statute or procedure provided by the

competent authority, this Court is not persuaded to approve of the

petitioner's contention that the question of limitation should be

decided as a preliminary issue.

7. This Court finds that the question as to whether the

proceedings have lapsed or not has not even been decided by the

Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.

8. It will nevertheless be required of the Adjudicating Authority

to decide petitioner's objection regarding limitation while passing

the final order.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

dismissed.

10. Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

190-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)