ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) NO . 5, Link Road, Faridabad, which was taken over by the IT Department under s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for the use of Centralized Processing Centre.
(2.) THE case set out in the petition is that Sita Wanti Chadha mother of Petn. Nos. 1 to 3 was the owner of the property husband of Sita Wanti Chadha entered into an agreement to purchase lease hold rights of the said property. The property was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1973. However, the same was released from acquisition in the proceedings initiated by Sita Wanti Chadha in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1983 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as Engineers (P) Ltd. in which respondent No. 7, daughter -in -law of Sita Wanti Chadha, was one of the directors. Sita Wanti Chadha made an application under s. 269UC of the Act for securing no objection certificate. The petitioners filed 2000, the property in dispute was acquired under s. 269UD(1) of the Act, on the ground that ostensible consideration was under evaluation. It is further on record that a sum of Rs. 61,89,000 was paid to Sita Wanti Chadha who handed
(3.) CONTENTION raised in the writ petition is that the petitioners were the lessees and were in the possession of the property and had right to be heard before an order under s. 269UD(1) of the Act was passed, in the absence of which, the impugned order was illegal. This contention has been opposed in the reply filed on behalf of the IT Department, by submitting that the requirement of giving of hearing is applicable to the transferor in occupation of the property and only if the transferor is not in occupation of the property, any other person in occupation or otherwise interested in the property is entitled to be heard. In the present case, Sita Wanti Chadha was the owner in possession and her husband S. Gurbachan Singh acquired by the State of Haryana in 1973 and possession was, thereafter, restored to Sita Wanti Chadha after the said property was released from acquisition. Relevant averments are as under : "2. That in the instant case, the immovable property in question was purchased by Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha wife of Shri said immovable property was acquired by the State of Haryana in the year 1973 but the acquisition was ultimately set Haryana and her name was entered in the columns of owner and cultivator in the mutation register vide Sr. No. 5549." was with Sita Wanti Chadha (para 4 of the reply). In reply to para 16(f), it has been stated as under : "16 (1) of the IT Act, 1961, for apparent consideration of Rs. 61,89,000. Payment has been made to the transferor and is acknowledged and transferor Smt. Sita Wanti Chadha had handed over peaceful vacant possession of the property to the before the Hon'ble High Court or any other authority. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Appropriate Authority is final and conclusive as already submitted in the paragraphs supra. The property vests with the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of s. 269UE of the IT Act, 1961. The petitioners have no locus standi as they are neither transferor nor transferee." ;