Wp/12269/2013 Of Mutta Venkata Ramana v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Range -2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITIONNo.12269 of 2013 DATED:06.06.2013 Between: Mutta Venkata Ramana & 5 others ... Petitioners And The Income Tax OfficerWard 2(2), Range-2Visakhapatnam & 2 others … Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMARWRIT PETITIONNo.12269 of 2013 ORDER: The petitioners claimed to have purchased various extents ofland in Sy.Nos.85, 86P, 90P, 91, 92, 93, 94P, 96P and 97P ofJarajapupeta village, Nellimarla Mandal, Vizianagaram district, underregistered sale deeds. Upon obtaining necessary permission forconversion of land use, they claimed to have prepared a lay out inrespect of these lands under the name and style of ‘Taj Baba Nagar’.They further stated that they sold various plots in this lay out and somesuch plots were purchased by M/s Secured Investment MakingServices (India) Pvt. Ltd., (SIMS). It is the case of the petitioners thatafter selling these plots, they continued to remain in possession ofvarious plots as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition. While so, when they proposed to alienate these plots, theywere informed by the Sub-Registrar, Nellimarla, the 3[rd] respondent,that the said documents would not be entertained for registration inview of the attachment order passed by the Income Tax Authoritiesunder Section 281-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assailing this actionof the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. In his counter, the 3[rd] respondent referred to the attachmentorder passed by the Income Tax Authorities against SIMS and also thecommunication received from the Police Authorities with regard tostoppage of transactions involving assets belonging to SIMS owing tothe alleged fraud committed by it. While stating that the petitioners didnot present any documents for registration, the 3[rd] respondent concluded that in the event they present any document for registration,action would be taken as per the Rules. 3. In the light of the stand adopted by the 3[rd] respondent in thecounter, it is clear that even if the petitioners present a document forregistration in respect of their plots in the subject survey numbers thedocument is bound to be rejected owing to the attachment orderpassed by the Income Tax Authorities. It is however relevant to notethat the said attachment order was passed only against SIMS inrespect of its assets. It is admitted that SIMS owns certain plots in TajBaba Nagar, the lay out effected by the petitioners in the subjectsurvey numbers. Therefore, the attachment passed by the Income TaxAuthorities would have to be limited to plots owned by SIMS in thesaid lay out and cannot be extended to the plots owned by others,including the petitioners herein. The 3[rd] respondent would thereforehave to undertake identification of the plots in Taj Baba Nagar ownedby SIMS and limit the attachment effected under Section 281-B of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, to such plots alone. The said attachment canhave no effect over the plots belonging to third parties in the saidsurvey numbers. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3[rd]respondent to undertake the above exercise and in the event, thedocuments presented by the petitioners for registration pertain to plotsother than those owned by SIMS, the 3[rd] respondent shall receive andprocess the said documents in accordance with law. If suchdocuments presented by the petitioners are otherwise found to fulfillthe requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian StampAct, 1899, the Sub-Registrar, Nellimarla, shall complete the registration formalities and release the documents in accordance withthe due procedure. WP MP No.15167 of 2013 shall stand closed in thelight of this final order. No costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 06.06.2013BSS