C.K.Sayed Ahammed Vs. Joint Commissioner

C.K.Sayed Ahammed vs Joint Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 17, 2014

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1166261

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1166261
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque
Decided On: Oct 17, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.K.Sayed Ahammed

Respondent

Joint Commissioner

Excerpt

.....first respondent. a.muhamed mustaque, j..................................................... w.p.c. no. 24201 of 2014 ......................................................... dated this the 17th day of october, 2014. judgment petitioner has approached this court challenging ext. p5 order of attachment of immovable property issued under rule 48 of second schedule to the income - tax act, 1961. petitioner submits that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property mentioned in ext. p5 attachment schedule. petitioner further submits that the attachment earlier effected in this property has been lifted as per an order of this court.2. i am of the view that the petitioner has a statutory remedy. he can raise his claim for lifting the attachment before the tax recovery officer who issued ext. p5 order under the relevant provisions. therefore, the petitioner shall make a claim to lift the attachment w.p.c. no. 26147 of 2014 ..2.. before the recovery officer, range-i, ernakulam within four weeks from today. on receipt of the claim of the petitioner who claims as a bonafide purchaser, the recovery officer, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of four weeks. this writ petition is disposed of as above. petitioner also submits that mutation has not been effected on account of the attachment. the attachment initiated against the property is not a bar in transfer of registry. creditors right will not be lost by effecting transfer of registry. transfer of registry, therefore, will be subject to any right available to the creditor to proceed against the property. therefore, the 3rd respondent shall effect transfer registry in respect of the said property within a period of two weeks. this writ petition is disposed of as above. dated this the 17th day of october, 2014. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque, (judge) ani/ /truecopy/ p.s.tojudge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE17H DAY OF OCTOBER201425TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 24201 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------- 1. C.K.SAYED AHAMMED AGED52YEARS S/O. P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

2. P.M.KHANKUTTY AGED79YEARS S/O.KUNJUPPILLAI, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

3. DR.C.K.ABDUL SALAM AGED55YEARS S/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

4. C.J.ABDUL AZEES AGED55YEARS S/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

5. AYSHA MOL, AGED33YEARS D/O. P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

6. SANIF KHAN AGED24YEARS S/O. P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

7. T.P.M.ABDULLA KHAN AGED65YEARS S/O. PAREETH BAVA KHAN, PUTHENVEETTIL, ERATTUPETTA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

8. P.A.MUHAMMED KHAN AGED40YEARS PUTHENVEETTIL, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

9. LAILA BEEGAM AGED49YEARS D/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

10. NASEEMA BEEVI AGED47YEARS S/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

11. SOFY S/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

12. KHURSHID BEEGAM AGED44YEARS S/O.P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

13. FATHIMA BEEVI AGED73YEARS W/O. P.M.KHANKUTTY, CHERUKARAYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS2TO13ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER1T PETITIONER) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.OF JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX RANGE - I, C.R.BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD KOCHI - 18, ERNAKULAM.

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI.

4. SHRI.ABDUL AZEES,, AGED49YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, DOOR NO. 8/1302, PALLIYARKKAVU ROAD COCHIN - 683 002. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1710-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24201 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------- P1 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4446/05 DT. 03//9/05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF1T PETITIONER. P1(A) - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4440/05 DT. 03.9.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS2 4 AND5 P1(B)- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4439/05, DT. 03.9.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF3D PETITIONER. P1(C) - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4441/05 DT. 03.9.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF6H PETITIONER IS PRODUCED. P1(D) - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4442/05 DT. 03/9/05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF8H PETITIONER. P1(F) - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4443/05, DT. 03.09.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF9H PETITIONER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED P1 (G) - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4445/05 DT. 03.09.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS10 11 AND12 P1(H)- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4447/05 DT. 03.9.05 EXECUTED BY THE5H RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS13 14 AND15 P2 - THE SAID ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 12370 DT. 31.8.05 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 24201 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- P3 - THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. WZR32166/14 DT. 22.4.14 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN AUTHORITIES IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS. P4 - THE PHOTOCOP YOFTHE SAID ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 8817/14 DT. 21.4.14 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. P5 - THE PHTOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE1T RESPONDENT NO. TR1707/08 DT. 11.2.2009 FORWARDED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE2D RESPONDENT. P6 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DT. 01.6.14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. P7 - THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DT. 01.6.14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

.................................................... W.P.C. No. 24201 of 2014 ......................................................... Dated this the 17th day of October, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P5 order of attachment of immovable property issued under Rule 48 of Second Schedule to the Income - Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner submits that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property mentioned in Ext. P5 attachment schedule. Petitioner further submits that the attachment earlier effected in this property has been lifted as per an order of this Court.

2. I am of the view that the petitioner has a statutory remedy. He can raise his claim for lifting the attachment before the Tax Recovery Officer who issued Ext. P5 order under the relevant provisions. Therefore, the petitioner shall make a claim to lift the attachment W.P.C. No. 26147 of 2014 ..2.. before the Recovery Officer, Range-I, Ernakulam within four weeks from today. On receipt of the claim of the petitioner who claims as a bonafide purchaser, the Recovery Officer, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of four weeks. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner also submits that mutation has not been effected on account of the attachment. The attachment initiated against the property is not a bar in transfer of registry. Creditors right will not be lost by effecting transfer of registry. Transfer of registry, therefore, will be subject to any right available to the creditor to proceed against the property. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall effect transfer registry in respect of the said property within a period of two weeks. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 17th day of October, 2014. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge) ani/ /truecopy/ P.S.ToJudge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties C.K.Sayed Ahammed vs Joint Commissioner Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque