Wp/3683/2009 Of Amarjit Singh Gill v. The Union Of India

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.3683 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3683 OF 2009 Amarjit Singh Gill ...Petitioner. V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.R.K.Agrawal , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Abhay Ahooja, adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & J.H.Bhatia,JJ. J.H.Bhatia,JJ DATE : 6th April, 2009. DATE : 6th April, 2009. DATE : 6th April, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Petitioner has approached this Court contending that his properties have been illegally attached. Properties consist of 17th Maruti Chambers, Ground floor, Kalamboli, New Bombay and 209 Maruti Chambers, Second floor, Kalamboli, New Bombay which belong to the petitioner. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Revenue by Shri S.R.Malik. Exhibit 17 is the letter dated 26th March, 2009 whereby Daljit Singh Gill had been informed that the seal put on shop nos.209 and 210 is lifted. However, attachment would remain in force. Similarly in respect of shop no.17, seal and attachment are lifted. : 2 : 2. Our attention is also invited to Exhibit 12 which is the order of attachment dated 4-3-2009 which shows that the shop no.17 was attached and Exhibit 13 which shows that shop no.210 was attached. Both are addressed to Shri Daljit Singh Gill. 3. Attention is also invited to the report dated 1.4.2009 which shows that officers of the respondent had visited premises to serve letter dated 26.3.2009 regarding lifting of seal of premises and letter dated 31.3.2009 regarding attachment and sealing of the premises. It is also mentioned therein that Mr.Amarjit Singh, elder brother of Daljit Singh was present and refused to accept the letter. 4. We are not much concerned with the controversy now as admittedly, the seal on two premises bearing nos.209 and 210 have been lifted. Counsel for the Revenue explains that so far as shop no.209 is concerned, it was never attached but because there was common entrance to shop nos.209 and 210, a seal was put to that common entrance. Seal as such, has been removed. Considering the stand of the respondents that shop no.209 had never been attached : 3 : and so far as shop no.17 is concerned, attachment has been lifted, nothing further survives in the petition and it is accordingly, disposed off. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)