GOURI PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned three writ petitions are filed on same facts and circumstances for identical reliefs. Therefore, this Court delivers the following common judgment in the above-mentioned writ petitions. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the facts of WPA 11647 of 1991 are recorded below in brief.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they are members of a Hindu Undivided Family of which petitioner No.1 is the 'Karta'. The remaining petitioners are the members of the said Hindu Undivided Family. Be it noted here that during the pendency of the writ petitions, petitioner No.2, Smt. Indu Goenka died and vide order dtd. 9/2/2021, her name was deleted from the cause title of the writ petitions on the ground that her legal heirs and representatives are already on record. It is stated by the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 as 'Karta' of HUF is the owner of 1/4th share of the premises No.37B, Paikpara, Raja Manindra Road comprised in an area of 787.14 square metres, of which the share of petitioner No.1 is 196.78 square metres. The said premises had several buildings including residential buildings thereon. The other owners of the said premises are (a) Sri Rama Prasad Goenka, H.U.F. having 3/16 share, (b) Sri Jagadish Prasad Goenka, HUF having 1/4th share, (c) Sri Harsh Vardhan Goenka having 1/16th share and (d) Smt. Keshar Goenka having 1/4th share. In addition to the aforesaid, the said Gouri Prasad Goenka, petitioner No.1 herein as Karta of HUF is also the owner of a tank comprised in an area of 1617.91 square metres in premises No.37F, Paikpara, Raja Manindra Road. Petitioner No.1 as Karta of HUF is also the owner of undivided 1/4th share in land fully covered by a non-residential building comprising of an area of 568.56 square metres in premises No.1, Jadulal Mallick Road, Calcutta. The share of petitioner No.1 in the said premises comes to 142.14 square metres. Further case of the petitioner is that they duly declared the existence and ownership of the above-mentioned properties in their Income-tax and Wealth-tax filed and as HUF, they are being assessed to tax under the relevant provision of IT Act. Municipal Taxes are also paid by the said HUF.

(3.) It is stated by the petitioners that the said HUF of which petitioner No.1 is the 'Karta' did not hold any vacant land within the meaning of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Moreover, as the Hindu Undivided Family is not 'person' within the meaning of the said Act. It was not required by the said HUF to file any return under the said Act. However, through inadvertence and by mistake, the petitioner No.1 filed a return under Sec. 6(1) of the said Act before the respondent No.2. The Return was filed through bonafide mistake and under misappropriation of law in this respect occurring several errors in the said Return as regards the particulars of the properties held by the said HUF.