G.K.Jain & ANR v. Estate Officer & ORS
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 10.02.2020 G.K. Jain and another Petitioners
Versus
The Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present:
Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 10.
**** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This writ petition was filed with the following prayers:-
!
#$%$%#&&'
( )*
+ ,%*-
.
[2]
/
. "
. "
"
( )#
*$ . .
"
!
+
.
( )#*
.
11%
2+
#&$#
34 ## 3 #5%6
"
.
( )#*
"
7
7
( )
#9 ".
#8%5%#&&'
: 2+ 0 . "
"
( )*9
.
2+
( )#8
"
7
3
*55
3
*5&
2+
#&$#
.
2+
( )#;
( )#
#9 #5 #- **
*8
[3]
*5$ /
3
*$&<=
2+
#&$#
. 2 . .
+ 2
+ ,%#
,%5-
" >
+
?
=
@
"
+
) [2] Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the time of arguing, has restricted his prayer only to prayer Nos.(iv) and (v). [3] The brief facts are that the petitioner No.1 was tenant in the property in dispute (alongwith petitioner No.2 about whom reference would be made lateron). The petitioner made a complaint to the Revenue that the owners of the property were intending to sell it at an austensible price of 15 lakhs whereas he was ready to buy it for 40 lakhs and it is the case of the petitioner that in fact sale deed took place in the manner which had been suspected. The petitioner No.2 withdrew from the petition. The complaint of the petitioner was investigated and the Assistant Director went through the whole issue and gave following conclusions:-
[4] XX XX XX "
"
%" "
34 ( )## #5%6
"
%"
" .
( ) :02 0 .) A : &'%&$ 8-&%&9
*$%'%&'
%"
> ) .
.
"
.
)
!
<)2)
"
+
3 : 34 ( )## #5%6
")
.
%"
3 : % +
.
:
#-&&) 2 + .
>
. 34 ( )## #5%6
"
%
3 : )
.
.
.
%.
34 ( )## #5%6
"
)
. "
.
"
34 ( )## #5%6
")B XX XX XX "
>
[5]
% + ,
+
C% D
% +
*;9
+
3 :) D
".
%
.
E ( );8%
>
*;9
>
) 2
+
"
34 ( )## #5%6
"
)B XX XX XX [4] The pointed query which we put to learned counsel is how the petitioner could maintain the petition for mandamus. [5] It is his contention that whenever duty is cast on any public official and they do not faithfully fulfil the duty, a citizen has a right to seek mandamus and more so, in the present case, because the petitioner was a complainant.
[6] In our opinion, though there may be some areas wherein the issue of locus standi have lost its importance yet the present cannot be a such case. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. (2004) 2 SCC 463 titled as Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others would not come to his help. In that case a cooperative bank invested money in the market contrary to the statutory provisions and thereafter lost that public money. On the one hand
[6] notices were issued by the government and on the other hand, writ petition was filed in Gujarat High Court making these allegations which was treated as Public Interest Litigation by the Gujarat High Court. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court had upheld action of the High Court having entertained that petition. This authority can not be read to indefinitely expand the locus standi in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. [7] There is another angle for viewing the present case. The petitioner was one of the tenant occupying the property in question and was intending to buy the same, he was looking out to encash the order dated 05.08.1992 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh in the eviction proceedings as it was in favour of the tenant. In such circumstances, he made a complaint.
The complaint was duly looked into and investigated by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigations), Chandigarh. The matter was also sent to the revenue authorities who came to the conclusion that the market value of the property was correctly set forth in the sale deed. The Assistant Director (Investigation), Chandigarh concluded that the evidence brought on record was not sufficient to establish that unaccounted money had passed hands in the sale of the property. In spite of this, he forwarded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for examination of the three possibilities. He further had certain doubts with regard to sale of three separate units by the coowners. By this itself, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner.
[7] Act. Moreover, it was for the income tax authorities to look into the same and there was no requirement that the petitioner should have been associated or informed about the outcome. [8] It has also not been disputed that by this time, the petitioner has been evicted from the property in accordance with law. Consequently, we see no reason to interfere.
[9] The writ petition is dismissed.
[10] Since the writ petition is dismissed, the pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 10, 2020 >@ @