Ram Singh Meena v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benamiprohibition), Jaipur, Room

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19401/2022 Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Karan Meena, Aged About 53Years, R/o Village And Post- Mainpura, Tehsil And District- SawaiMadhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (BenamiProhibition) And Initiating Officer, Under PBPT Act- 1988For State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. NA-103, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001.Prohibition) And Initiating Officer, Under PBPT Act- 1988For State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. NA-103, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (BenamiProhibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur.Prohibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate with Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate & Mr. Palash Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate with Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, AdvocateMr. Ran Vijay Singh, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Judgment / Order 16/05/2023 Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issueraised in this petition has been decided by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submitthat though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the aforesaid case, review petition has been filed which is pendingconsideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, could notdispute that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) remains operative and has not been decided so far. In view of the above, this petition also deserves to beallowed and accordingly, the property in dispute being “1/2 part ofKhasra Nos. 642-650, 658, 67-672, 674-679, 684. 687, 690-694,1164-1166, 1170-1171, 673, 689 [having total area of 5.45hectare] of Village Kukas, Tehsil-Amer, District Jaipur” deserves tobe released. Let necessary steps be taken to release the disputedproperty. It is, however, made clear that the release will be subject tothe final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the pending review petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Mohita /90