Dismissed

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Alias Miyan v. The Tax Recovery Officer

Telangana HC20 Dec 2012WP/3351/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a rejection of ownership claim regarding auctioned property, the High Court held that since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act was available, it was not inclined to adjudicate under Article 226. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and earlier interim directions were dissolved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; interim direction dissolved; liberty to pursue appropriate remedy granted.

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Alias Miyan Vs The Tax Recovery… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶4

W.P.No.3351 of 2010

¶5

ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶6

Heard Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

On 27-01-2010 the 1^st respondent initiated process for public auction/sale of immovable property bearing house No.1812-418/b/29, comprising 200 sq. yds. of urban land with a 1000 sq. ft. constructed area situated at Hafeezbaba Nagar,Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, belonging to the specified defaulter one Sri Abdul Wahab, Proprieter of M/s.Princess Prints, represented by the legal heirs Shri Mohd. Mohsin/Sajjida Begum/Asiya Jahan, residents of Hafeezbaba Nagar,Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, scheduling the auction on 24-02-2010. This public auction/sale notification was published in the press on 28-01-2010.

¶8

The petitioner lodged objections on 08-02-2010 before the 1^st respondent asserting claim of ownership of the notified property. This claim application of the petitioner was rejected by the 1^st respondent by order dated 10-02-2010.

¶9

In the counter filed by the 1^st respondent it is clearly pointed out that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory

¶10

alternative remedy by way of a civil suit under the provisions of Rule 11 (6) of the II Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against rejection of claim petition.

¶11

In the context of the availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar states that the petitioner will pursue the alternative remedy in any event.

¶12

In the context of availability of the statutory alternative remedy by way of a civil suit, we are not inclined to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s claim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; and consequently the interim direction granted on 2302-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.3351 of 2010 stands dissolved. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶14

____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶15

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶16

Date:20-12-2012 kvr

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Alias Miyan v. The Tax Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Sattar Alias Miyan v. The Tax Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Satya sai Contractors, Sundarnagar, Gandhinagar Post, Vs Asst.Dir.of Minesandgeology Ongole Prakas

M/s. Sharma Transport Vs Joint Transport Commissioner and Secrtary

Smt. K.Sumitra, Vs The Commissioner

M/S Apple Industries Ltd. Vs State of Ap Before Stat Hyd

Sri K. Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The Dy. Transport Commissioner and

M/S.Venkatadri Oils Ltd/Vja Vs Commssioner of Commercial Taxes/Hyd