Wp/34460/2015 Of Income Tax Recovery Officer v. S. Devraj Pande

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26[tn]DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA| ,W.P.No.34460/2015(GMCPC) BETWEEN INCOME TAX RECOVERY OFFICER,RANGE-6, 3[>a]FLOOR,“JEEVAN SAMPIGE™No.1/1, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,|BANGALORE - 560 O03. .. PETLTIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADV.) AND 1.S.DEVRAJ PANDE, S/O LATE K.S.PANDE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT No.605, 7 MAIN, III STAGE, III] BLOCK, BASVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 0/79. 2.RAJEEV S. KANADAM, S/O K.R.SRINIVAS RAO,AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,R/AT No. 188, DOUBLE ROAD,2 STAGE INDIRA NAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 038.AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,R/AT No. 188, DOUBLE ROAD,2 STAGE INDIRA NAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 038. ., RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA .S. VYAS, ADV., FOR R-1;. SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 27/7 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER!DATED 14.0/7.201L5 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXXADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE|CITY IN EX.PET.No.1311/2012 DATED:14.0/7.2015 ISSUINGSALE PROCLAMATION AND SALE WARRANT ORDER VIDE.ANNEXURE-J TO THE W.P AND ETC. THISPETITIONCOMING|ON|FOR|PRELIMINARY|HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THEFOLLOWING:ORDER 1.This writ petition is filed challenging an order by whichthe Executing Court has ordered issuance of a= saleproclamation and a sale warrant. 2.The case of the writ petitioner, wno nNappens to be theTax Recovery Officer of Income Tax Department, is that he.nad made an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of Code ofCivil Procedure requesting the Executing Court to consider theobjections for attacnment of the scheduled properties and to.raise the attachment. 3.It is the case of the Tax Recovery Officer that withoutconsideringtneapplication,tne|ExecutingCourt|nasproceeded to order issuance of sale proclamation and salewarrant. 4It is not in dispute that the contentions raised by theTax Recovery Officer have not been considered by theExecuting Court, before it passed the impugned order. 5,In my view, in tne light of this admitted fact that theorder of the Executing Court directed issuance of saleproclamation without considering the application of the TaxRecovery Officer, the order cannot be sustained. Theimpugned order is therefore set-aside. | 6.The Executing Court is therefore directed to consider|the application filed by the Tax Recovery Officer regardinglifting of the sale proclamation and thereafter proceed in.accordance witn law. Tne writ petition is accordinglyallowed J.It is needless to state that all the contentions of eitner.of the parties are to be adjudicated by tne Executing Courtwithout reference to any observations made by this Court in.this order.| GH Sd/-JUDGE.