BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question attachment order dated 5 -2 -2013 - - Annexure -J passed by respondent whereunder petitioner is prohibited and restrained until further orders of respondent from transferring or creating charge of the property bearing R.S. No. 49 (old), R.S. No. 57/6 (new), L.A. No. 1/47, CH 673, CTS No. 837 situated at 3rd Main Road, next to Gavi Gangadhareshwara Temple Road, Ramegowdanagar, Kempegowdanagar, Gavipuram Guttahalli by attaching the said property. Petitioner is a statutory body created under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Petitioner contends that property referred to herein above belongs to it and originally said land was Government 'B' Kharab land and Government had not specifically reserved the said land and when the entire area was included within the limits of then Bangalore City Corporation it has become the property of the Corporation. It is contended that except petitioner, no other person/s are having any right, title and interest over the same and it is in physical possession of the same. It is also contended that a Trust by name Sri Bhadra Bahu Swamiji Adishtata of Gomat Vidyapeeta Jain Gurukul Trust had filed a Writ Petition No. 31276 of 1996 against the then Bangalore City Corporation to asses the said property in the name of the Trust and for issuance of katha. This Court by order dated 27 -1 -1997 directed the Assistant Revenue Officer, Basavanagudi Range, BBMP, Bangalore to dispose of the application filed by the Trust in accordance with law. It is also contended that during the pendency of the said writ petition, suit in O.S. No. 9083 of 1996 came to be filed by the said Trust for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed on 27 -8 -2007 on merits. Thereafter, BBMP issued an endorsement dated 23 -7 -2010 to the said Trust rejecting the application for registration of katha. It is also stated that an appeal RFA No. 2138 of 2007 filed against said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 9083 of 2006 came to be dismissed for default on 31 -7 -2012 vide Annexure -D and when this was the factual position, petitioner is said to have received a communication dated 1 -10 -2012 from respondent to furnish details in respect of Government property on the ground it belonged to the defaulter Trust as per Annexure -E. Another letter dated 9 -10 -2012 was said to have been issued by respondent to petitioner on the same lines. After receipt of said letter, petitioner -authority is stated to have replied to the same on 18 -10 -2012 contending that property above referred to belongs to the Corporation and said property is in possession of the Corporation vide Annexure -G. It is also stated that clarification came to be issued by the Corporation to respondent and despite such reply and clarification, respondent -authority issued an order of attachment dated 5 -2 -2013 addressed to Sri Sanjay B. Patil, L/R of late Bhadra Bhau Swamy, Gomatesh Vidyapeeth and Jain Gurukul Trusts, Hindwadi, Belgaum and copy was sent to the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Basavanagudi Sub -Division, Bangalore vide Annexure -J.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court contending that respondent -authority has not considered clarification issued by the petitioner in proper perspective; respondent has no power or jurisdiction to attach the property belonging to the petitioner and neither the said Trust nor the respondent have proved that property in question belongs to the said Trust; respondent has not produced documents including the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 9083 of 2006 and RFA No. 2138 of 2007 and respondent -authority has erroneously arrived at the conclusion that schedule property belongs to the said Trust. Hence, it is contended that impugned order passed by respondent -authority is illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) AVERMENTS made in the writ petition and the documents produced would not indicate that petitioner has in fact filed such objections to the notice of attachment. Reply given by the petitioner is appended to the objection lodged with the Recovery Officer and on account of its non -examination it is contended that attachment is in violation of principles of natural justice. Said contention cannot be obviously accepted inasmuch as, order of attachment issued by the Recovery Officer is dated 5 -2 -2013 and the representations said to have been submitted by the petitioner before respondent is 18 -10 -2012 which is lodged prior to notice of attachment. In that view of the matter, present petition is premature and cannot be entertained and it is liable to be rejected. However, rejection of this petition would not come in the way of petitioner filing claim or objection to the order of attachment by adducing evidence if so advised. It would be needless to state that if such objections are filed by the petitioner, respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders by taking note of all the documents produced by the petitioner namely, judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court and the objections already filed by petitioner and till decision is arrived at, no further coercive or precipitative action shall be taken. With these observations, this writ petition stands dismissed.