Sanatan Budeg Shri Lal Bihari Budeg v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Room

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3420 of 2024 1. Sanatan Budeg Shri Lal Bihari Budeg, Aged About 65 YearsR/o Village Nawagaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund(C.G.).R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund(C.G.). ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Room No.201, First Floor, Central Revenue Buliding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 201, First Floor, Central Revenue Buliding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Initiating Officer, Pbpt Act, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax(Benami Prohibition), Room No. 201, First Floor, Central RevenueBuilding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) (Benami Prohibition), Room No. 201, First Floor, Central RevenueBuilding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (DepartmentOf Revenue), Government Of India, New Delhi. Of Revenue), Government Of India, New Delhi. 4. Adjudicating Officer Under The Prohibition Of Benami PropertyTransactions Act, 1988, Room No. 26, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Buliding,Parliament Street, New Delhi. Transactions Act, 1988, Room No. 26, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Buliding,Parliament Street, New Delhi. 5. Shoukilal Bariha S/o Shri Hutasan Bariha, Aged About 55 YearsR/o Village- Padkipali, Post Paraswani, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora,District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Benimadar) R/o Village- Padkipali, Post Paraswani, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora,District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Benimadar) 6. Santosh Patel S/o Shri Chetan Patel, Aged About 53 YearsR/o Village- Nawgaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil-Pithora, District Mahasamund(C.G.) (Alleged Beneficial Owner) R/o Village- Nawgaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil-Pithora, District Mahasamund(C.G.) (Alleged Beneficial Owner) 7. Manoj S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 37 YearsR/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 8. Naveen S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 35 YearsR/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 9. Chabi S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 44 YearsR/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 10.Kiskinaar S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 71 YearsR/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 11. Collector Mahsamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 12.Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 13.Municipal Council, Mungeli Through - Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli(C.G.).(C.G.). -------Respondents (cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Surfuraz Khan, Advocate : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Naushina Ali, Advocate along with 2 Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Chaudhari, Advocate For Respondent No. 11 & 12 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. 09/07/2024 SB:Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, JudgeORDER ON BOARD 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 13.Municipal Council, Mungeli Through - Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli(C.G.).(C.G.). -------Respondents (cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Surfuraz Khan, Advocate : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Naushina Ali, Advocate along with 2 Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Chaudhari, Advocate For Respondent No. 11 & 12 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. 09/07/2024 SB:Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, JudgeORDER ON BOARD 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to issue a Suitable Writ (S), Order (s),Direction (s), by commanding Respondent No.2 to act on the complaint (Annexure P/1) of thepetitioner, as per Section 23 of The Prohibitionof Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Asamended, the Benami Transaction [Prohibition]Amendment Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01/11/2016), withina time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to call the entire records from the courtbelow for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may besuitable in the facts and circumstances of thecase, may also be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with the Respondent No. 7 to 10 were owner of the property bearing KhasraNo. 230 admeasuring 0.30 hectares and Khasra no. 255 admeasuring0.39 hectares. The Respondents No. 7 to 10 have sold the part of thesaid property in favour of one tribal person in the name of ShoukilalBariha. However, the sale consideration was paid by the Respondent No.6 who is a non-tribal person. The transfer of land of a tribal person to anon-tribal person is not permissible under the law and therefore, thetransfer of land is made through Benami Transaction. Petitioner madeseveral complaints to the different authorities, however, it has not beentaken into consideration. 3. When the Court posed question as to what is the locus of the petitionerto file this writ petition, he submits that the petitioner is also co-sharer ofthe property and is also having the right over that property which hasbeen sold without his consent and the entire sale consideration has been kept by the seller i.e. the Respondent No. 7 to 10. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4submits that there appears to be some dispute between the familymembers i.e. the petitioner and the Respondents No. 7 to 10 with regardto their share in the joint owner property and this writ petition is filed orthe complaint is made only because of some property dispute betweenthem and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. submits that there appears to be some dispute between the familymembers i.e. the petitioner and the Respondents No. 7 to 10 with regardto their share in the joint owner property and this writ petition is filed orthe complaint is made only because of some property dispute betweenthem and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perusedthe documents enclosed along with the writ petition.the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perusedthe documents enclosed along with the writ petition.the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 6. The petitioner is neither the seller of the land nor the purchaser. Thegrievance shown by the counsel for the petitioner is that the co-ownership property is sold by some of the co-owner and he was not paidthe amount of his share and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, thewrit petition in its form is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Ifthe petitioner is having some dispute with respect to the share in the saidproperty or the sale consideration, the petitioner is having some otherremedy by way of filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriateforum. grievance shown by the counsel for the petitioner is that the co-ownership property is sold by some of the co-owner and he was not paidthe amount of his share and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, thewrit petition in its form is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Ifthe petitioner is having some dispute with respect to the share in the saidproperty or the sale consideration, the petitioner is having some otherremedy by way of filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriateforum. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition isdismissed. dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey