H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner, Shantimoy Ray, who is a tenant in one of the shops located in House No. 30 (old No. 16, Chowk, Allahabad, seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th January, 1976, passed by the IAC of Income-tax (Competent Authority) under Section 269F(6), I.T. Act, for acquisition of the aforementioned building as also that of the notice dated 19th May, 1979, issued by him under Section 269-I(1) of the Act requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the shop in his tenancy. The petitioner seeks further relief by way of injuncting the first two respondents, namely, IAC of Income-tax and Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Allahabad, from ejecting him form the said shop.
(2.) THE building bearing House No. 30 (old No. 16), Chowk, Allahabad, is situated in a busy commercial area of Allahabad and it has a number of tenements which are being used for commercial purposes. Some time in the year 1947, the petitioner took on lease one such tenement on the ground floor (hereinafter indicated as the shop) from its owner, Smt. Janak Kishori Devi, and has thereafter been carrying on the business of Chemists and Druggists therein under the name and style of Esray and Company. On 5th April, 1977, Smt, Jana Kishori Devi executed a sale deed and sold the said building to respondents No. 4 to 6 of this writ petition. Being of opinion that the said property had been sold by Smt. Janaki Kishori Devi to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for an apparent consideration which was less than its fair market value and that the consideration in the sale deed had not been truly stated, the IAC of Income-tax, who was the Competent Authority, initiated proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act, for acquisition of the said property by publishing a notice under Section 269D of the Act, in the Gazette of India, dated 11th January, 1975, Part III, Section 1, at page 306. In due course the Competent Authority passed the order dated 16th January, 1976, under Section 269F(6) of the Act for acquisition of the building and followed it by the notice under Section 269-I(1), dated 19th May, 1976, requiring the petitioner to hand over possession of the shop in his occupation to the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Allahabad, within 30 days of its receipt. Petitioner claims that as prior to the service of notice dated 19th May, 1976, no other notice in connection with the impugned acquisition of the property was ever served upon him, he was not aware of the same. According to him, it was obligatory upon the Competent Authority -to, before passing orders for acquisition of the property under Section 269F(6), serve the petitioner with a notice under Section 269D(2)(a) of the Act and to afford him an opportunity to file his objections. Failure on the part of the Competent Authority in this regard has the effect of vitiating the order dated 16th January, 1976, passed by the Competent Authority under Section 269F(6) for acquisition of the property as also the notice dated 19th May, 1979, under Section 269-1 of the Act issued by him to the petitioner.
(3.) THE stand of the contesting respondents as disclosed by the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri A. S. Bisen, IAC of Income-tax, Lucknow, is that even though there was no individual service of notice under Section 269D(2)(a), I.T. Act, on the petitioner, the notice of proposed acquisition under Section 269(1) had been as provided in Rule 48E, I.T. Rules, publicly proclaimed and a copy of the same had been affixed on the front door of house No. 30, Chowk, Allahabad, to which petitioner's son, Sri Sheomoy Raj, who looked after the petitioner's business styled as M/s. Esray and Company, was a witness. Sri Sheomoy Ray had given the following certificate in the office copy of the proclamation : "We certify that Hindi and English versions of acquisition notice under Section 269D(1), Income-tax Act, has been fixed on the main door of premises No. 30/16, Chowk, Allahabad, along with the copy of the proclamation. THE proclamation had also been made with beat of drum." The respondents contend that, in the circumstances, the petitioner can be deemed to have acquired knowledge of acquisition proceedings and it could be taken that he had received the requisite notice (notice contemplated by Section 269D(2)(a)). As despite acquiring knowledge of acquisition proceedings the petitioner kept silent and as he did not care to file any objection, he could not, after the order for acquisition had become final, approach this court for any relief. They have further claimed that the object of the notice dated 19th May, 1979, issued to the petitioner under Section 269-I(1), I.T. Act, was not to physically evict the petitioner from the shop. The said notice was aimed at obtaining from the petitioner surrender or delivery of possession by his attorning to the Central Government in place of previous owner by accepting such terms and conditions as the Central Government may decide. Apart from the petitioner, all other tenants of House No. 30, Chowk, Allahabad, have executed agreements attorning to the Central Government in place of the previous owner. The respondents, therefore, claimed that, in the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.;