R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of an order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, dated March 23, 1990, which is directed against respondent No. 3, Abdul Hafiz. The second prayer for another relief reads, "to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 not to realise his one-third share of interest paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer."
(2.) BY the impugned order, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has taken a view that the income-tax assessment orders for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86 made in the hands of respondent No. 3 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, accordingly, he has cancelled the said assessment orders with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessments for the said years in the light of the discussion made in the impugned order and after affording an opportunity of being heard to respondent No. 3. We may mention that the petitioners who are two in number and respondent No. 3 are brothers. The case pleaded by the petitioners is that because of a family settlement amongst the three brothers, each one of them became entitled to one-third share in the amount representing interest which was received during the said years from the Special Land Acquisition Officer on account of delayed payment of compensation money in respect of acquisition of certain agricultural land which at one time belonged to the grandfather of the petitioners and respondent No. 3. It appears that taking this stand and on the basis of his returned income showing only one-third share in the interest amount, respondent No. 3 got himself assessed to income-tax for the assessment years mentioned earlier. It is these assessment orders which have been set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax by his order dated March 23, 1990, that is impugned in these proceedings. The findings recorded by the Commissioner, inter alia, are that the land which was the subject-matter of acquisition was the individual property of respondent No. 3 and, in the revenue records, it also stood recorded in his name alone. Further, the case set up about the family settlement amongst the brothers was not available to respondent No. 3 for more than one reason enumerated in the impugned order, including that the principle of family settlement as applicable to a Hindu, viz., an ancestral property, had no application in a case where the individual is governed by the Mohammedan law. It is in this background that the petitioners have filed the present petition asking for the relief set out earlier. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also considered the matter carefully. In our opinion, this writ petition is misconceived. Admittedly, the assessment orders which have been set aside were framed against respondent No. 3 in his individual status. Likewise, the order under Section 263 also is directed against respondent No. 3. The petitioners were never a party to the proceedings which terminated in the passing of the assessment orders or the order under Section 263 against respondent No. 3. The right of the petitioners and their locus standi to claim interference with the impugned order is set out by the petitioners in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition, alleging that respondent No. 3 has threatened the petitioners that he will realise from them one-third amount of interest paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in view of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 23, 1990. In paragraph 16, it is stated that the impugned order was passed to the great prejudice of the petitioners for which no notice was ever given to them. We feel that it is not necessary for us to record any opinion as it is not necessary for us to record any opinion on the question whether the petitioners were entitled to a notice before the impugned order against respondent No. 3 could be passed in an action against respondent No. 3 under Section 263 or on the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax, whether the same are erroneous in any respect. We see no good reason to quash the impugned order at the instance of the petitioners in these proceedings. If the petitioners feel hurt by the impugned order, it is for them to seek an audience by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law before the statutory authorities constituted under the Act. Thus, the remedy of the petitioners may lie elsewhere rather than in approaching this court and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SO far as the second relief is concerned, namely, the alleged threats held out by respondent No. 3, without going into the correctness of the same, no mandamus can be issued by this court as it is settled that a writ will go only against the statutory authority or State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and not against an individual. Thus, the writ petition for the second relief is also misconceived. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is misconceived and is rejected accordingly.;