Jocky Suresh S/O Thammaiah Vs. State of Karnataka by Secretary to Local Self Government, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961]-- sections 4 & 194-a: [n.k. patil, j] interest received on belated payment of compensation under land acquisition act held, interest received on belated payment of compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax and it is income.orderram mohan reddy, j.1. the petitioner's vendor, the kathedar of the immovable property bearing no. 1467 measuring 10 x 7.30 mtrs, in periyapatna town, periyapatna taluk, mysore district, having conveyed the property under a sale deed dt 14.4.2007, made an application dt. 24.5.2007 for change of katha, to the town panchayat, periyapatna. yet again on 7.7.2007 the petitioner made another application to the 3rd respondent-chief officer, town panchayat for change of katha, in response to which a notice dt. 16.6.2007 annexure-f was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish particulars of the property, which when not complied with, was followed by a reminder dt. 5.9.2007 annexure-g, addressing a copy to the petitioner's vendor. in the said notice, it is stated that the 2nd respondent-deputy commissioner passed an order on the representation by public directing the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry into the allegation that the property in question was public property. the petitioner, by legal notice dt 22.4.2008 annexure-j while enclosing a copy of the sale deed and the application in form no. 8 dt 24.5.2007, reiterated the request for change of katha. the 2nd respondent by order dt 13.5.2008, annexure-l, rejected the claim of the petitioner. hence this writ petition.2. the petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dt. 17.4.2009 of the 2nd respondent inter alia contending at para 5 thus:however, this respondent is not able to trace any such katha in its records.in addition, it is contended that the public of periyapatna having made a written requisition to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner had played a fraud by creating documents, the katha should not be changed into the name of the petitioner, copies of which were forwarded to the government and the deputy commissioner. it is staled that the deputy commissioner had called upon the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry and submit a report in respect of the property in question on the allegation of the public that it belong to the government, leading to the notice dt. 5.9.2007 annexure-r5 (annexure-g to the writ petition). thereafter, notice through post when addressed to the petitioner's vendor to appear before the 3rd respondent, was returned unserved with postal endorsement 'address not correct'. it is lastly contended that the documents available with the 3rd respondent when compared with the sale deed of the petitioner, did not tally and therefore, the 3rd respondent had called upon the petitioner to produce relevant documents..3. in response to the direction of this court, by order dated 20.04.09, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent making reference to the assessment of buildings and lands liable to taxes, register for the years 1997-98 to 2001-02, in respect of the property in question, points out to page no. 81 and submits that the entries disclose the name of the petitioner's vendor as kathedar and that the property in question was assessed to tax. learned counsel hastens to add that taxes for 17 years have not been paid by the petitioner's vendor.4. in the light of the entries in the register, the statement extracted supra from the statement of objections is incorrect the register discloses the name of the petitioner's vendor as the kathedar and therefore, there was no justification for the 3rd respondent to hold that there did not exist a katha in the name of shivanna in its register, for the years 1997-98 onwards, in inspect of the immovable property in question.5. it may be that the deputy commissioner directed the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry over the allegations of the public that the property in question belongs to the state government the effecting of a change in the katha from the name of the petitioner's vendor to that of the petitioner in the register maintained by the 3rd respondent, is not a fetter on the right of the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry as directed by the deputy commissioner, as they are two independent proceedings.6. in the circumstances, the order dt. 13.5.2008 annexure-l, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transfer of katha of the property in question being arbitrary and perverse is unsustainable.7. in the result, this petition is allowed in port. the order impugned annexure-l is quashed and a mandamus shall ensue to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of katha and pass orders thereon, in any event within a period of four weeks from today.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner's vendor, the kathedar of the immovable property bearing No. 1467 measuring 10 x 7.30 mtrs, in Periyapatna town, Periyapatna taluk, Mysore District, having conveyed the property under a sale deed dt 14.4.2007, made an application dt. 24.5.2007 for change of katha, to the Town Panchayat, Periyapatna. Yet again on 7.7.2007 the petitioner made another application to the 3rd respondent-Chief Officer, Town Panchayat for change of katha, in response to which a notice dt. 16.6.2007 Annexure-F was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish particulars of the property, which when not complied with, was followed by a reminder dt. 5.9.2007 Annexure-G, addressing a copy to the petitioner's vendor. In the said notice, it is stated that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner passed an order on the representation by public directing the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry into the allegation that the property in question was public property. The petitioner, by legal notice dt 22.4.2008 Annexure-J while enclosing a copy of the sale deed and the application in Form No. 8 dt 24.5.2007, reiterated the request for change of katha. The 2nd respondent by order dt 13.5.2008, Annexure-L, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dt. 17.4.2009 of the 2nd respondent inter alia contending at para 5 thus:

However, this respondent is not able to trace any such katha in its records.

In addition, it is contended that the public of Periyapatna having made a written requisition to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner had played a fraud by creating documents, the katha should not be changed into the name of the petitioner, copies of which were forwarded to the Government and the Deputy Commissioner. It is staled that the Deputy Commissioner had called upon the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry and submit a report in respect of the property in question on the allegation of the public that it belong to the Government, leading to the notice dt. 5.9.2007 Annexure-R5 (Annexure-G to the Writ Petition). Thereafter, notice through post when addressed to the petitioner's vendor to appear before the 3rd respondent, was returned unserved with postal endorsement 'address not correct'. It is lastly contended that the documents available with the 3rd respondent when compared with the sale deed of the petitioner, did not tally and therefore, the 3rd respondent had called upon the petitioner to produce relevant documents..

3. In response to the direction of this court, by order dated 20.04.09, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent making reference to the assessment of buildings and lands liable to taxes, register for the years 1997-98 to 2001-02, in respect of the property in question, points out to page No. 81 and submits that the entries disclose the name of the petitioner's vendor as kathedar and that the property in question was assessed to tax. Learned Counsel hastens to add that taxes for 17 years have not been paid by the petitioner's vendor.

4. In the light of the entries in the register, the statement extracted supra from the statement of objections is incorrect The register discloses the name of the petitioner's vendor as the kathedar and therefore, there was no justification for the 3rd respondent to hold that there did not exist a katha in the name of Shivanna in its register, for the years 1997-98 onwards, in inspect of the immovable property in question.

5. It may be that the Deputy Commissioner directed the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry over the allegations of the public that the property in question belongs to the State Government The effecting of a change in the katha from the name of the petitioner's vendor to that of the petitioner in the register maintained by the 3rd respondent, is not a fetter on the right of the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, as they are two independent proceedings.

6. In the circumstances, the order dt. 13.5.2008 Annexure-L, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transfer of katha of the property in question being arbitrary and perverse is unsustainable.

7. In the result, this petition is allowed in port. The order impugned Annexure-L is quashed and a mandamus shall ensue to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for transfer of katha and pass orders thereon, in any event within a period of four weeks from today.