SRI K S RAVINDRANATH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction to second respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore, to consider the application filed by the petitioners on 05/06/2006 [Annexure “E”], with regard to the change in the revenue entries to be made in the name of the petitioners in respect of the land in question i.e., land bearing Sy.No.75 known as Goblikatte, Mysore, measuring 12 Acres 9 Guntas, without reference to the letter dated 05/03/2012 [Annexure “L”], issued by the fourth respondent – Tax Recovery Officer of the Income tax Department, Mysore to the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the said communication.

It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question originally belonged to Sri Sreekantadatta Narasimharaja Wadeyar, scion of the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore and the said land was attached by the respondent – Income-Tax Department due to outstanding dues. Thereafter, public auction was proposed on 27/10/1993 at 11.30 a.m. at the office of the Income Tax Department, Nazarbad, Mysore, and Proclamation of Sale dated 24/9/1993 was issued under Rule 52(2) of II Schedule to the Income-Tax Act, 1961. On account of the communications addressed by the Revenue Officer, Corporation of Mysore, auction was not conducted on that date. Thereafter, auction was held on 19/01/1994. The petitioners state that they had quoted the highest price and were hence, the successful bidders. They paid the full amount of the purchase money of Rs.7,30,000/- on 07/02/1994 and the sale in favour of the petitioners was confirmed by an Order of Confirmation dated 23/10/1994, a copy of which is produced at Annexure “B”.

Subsequently, corporation of City of Mysore, filed W.P.No.23641/94 against respondent No.4 – Income-Tax Department, as well as the petitioners herein, seeking

There was also another communication addressed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner to the fourth and fifth respondents on 16/09/2011 in the context of Special C.C.No.134/98, disposed of by the 21st Addl. Special and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, on 30/08/2010. When the matter stood thus on 16/9/2011, the Deputy Commissioner addressed one more letter to the Income-Tax Department with regard to the auction conducted in respect of the land in question. A copy to that communication dated 05/03/2012, is at Annexure “L”. In response to letter dated 16/09/2011, the fourth respondent requested the Deputy Commissioner not to transfer the Katha of the subject lands until further information from his office. That communication is assailed in this writ petition. Thereafter, legal notice was also issued on behalf of the petitioners on 22/03/2012 to the fourth respondent, to which there has been no response. It is in this factual background, that the petitioners have assailed Annexure “L” and have sought a direction to the

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the material on record.

Drawing my attention to various documents annexed to the writ petition and particularly, the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.23641/94 dated 12/09/1995, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the auction conducted by the Income-Tax Department has been upheld by this Court. The sale was also confirmed, possession of the land in question has been given to the petitioners and the consequent act of entering the name of the petitioners in the revenue records was to be completed. It is in that context that representation was made by the petitioners to the third respondent on 05/06/2006. But till date, the respondent authorities have not acceded to the request made by the petitioners. In this context, it was pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 supported Annexure “L” by referring to Annexure “J”, which is a copy of the order dated 30/09/2010 passed in Special C.C.No.134/98 to contend that the Officers who conducted the auction in the instant case were subjected to proceedings before the CBI Court and therefore, in that context, the Department acted cautiously as the CBI Court had convicted the accused who were the personnel in Department in those proceedings.

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also supported the action of the Deputy Commissioner in issuing the communication to the Income – Tax Department having regard to the fact that there were certain criminal proceedings initiated with regard to public auction

In response to the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the judgment of the CBI Court to contend that the conviction of the Income – Tax Department personnel in those proceedings was with respect to Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli, Mysore, whereas, the land in question is Sy.No.75 of Goblikatte, which has nothing to do with the proceedings initiated before the CBI Court. It was also pointed out that in communication dated 04/07/2011 (Annexure “G”), the first respondent had categorically stated that the land in question belonged to the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, as per Government Gazette Notification dated 26/10/1950. It is in this context, that in order to recover Income-Tax dues from the son of the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore that the Income – Tax Department had rightly auctioned the land and hence, the further objections could not be raised with regard to the entering of the petitioners name in the revenue records.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that initially Corporation of City of Mysore had objected to the land in question being auctioned even prior to the auction taking place. Those objections were over ruled and the proclamation of sale was issued and subsequently, auction was conducted on 19/01/1994. That auction was assailed by the Corporation of the City of Mysore, in W.P.No.23641/94. In those proceedings, the Income – Tax Department had in fact supported the petitioners herein by expressly adopting objections filed by the first petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the third respondent in that writ petition. While upholding the auction conducted by the Department, this Court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the Mysore City Corporation, to file a civil suit in case it was aggrieved by the auction. Till date no such suit has been filed is the submission.

Thus, the conduct of the auction by the Income – Tax Department is concerned, the same has been upheld by this Court in the order dated 12/09/1995 passed in W.P.No.23641/94 in which, Mysore City Corporation was

In Special C.C.No.134/98 disposed of by the CBI Court on 30/08/2010, certain personnel of the Income Tax Department, who were arrayed as the accused, were convicted with regard to auction of the Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli, at Mysore. Infact, CBI Court had formulated the following points for its consideration in those proceedings, which can be usefully extracted below:-

Does prosecution further prove that in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Accused Nos.2 to 4 in connivance with Accused No.6 to 10 got identified the property measuring 10 acres comprised in Sy.No.4, Kurubarahalli adjacent to Zoo Garden, Mysore city, belonging to Sri.Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadeyar for the purpose of auctioning the property for recovery of Income Tax of Rs.7.51 Crores and further fixed a reserve price of this property for Rs.2,00,000/- per acre which is far below the actual market value of the land and further Accused No.4 arranged Accused No.9 as a dummy bidder and Accused No.7 acted as a mediator in settling the bill on behalf of accused and paid illegal gratification to accused public servants viz., Accused No.2 to 5 of Income Tax Dept. on various dates, and based on the false proclamation of attachment order supported by fabricated documents, Accused No.2 to 5 in connivance with Accused No.6 to 10 got auctioned the property for Rs.Twenty Lakhs only in order to cheat the Income Tax Department and Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadeyar as alleged and thereby committed offence under Sec. 120B r/w 420 of IPC? 3. Does prosecution further prove that Accused No.2 and 3 in connivance with

The conviction of the accused in those proceedings had no nexus whatsoever to the auction conducted by the Income – Tax Department wherein, the petitioners herein were the successful bidders. But it is in that context that the communication at Annexure “H” dated 16/09/2011 was made on behalf of the second respondent to the Income – Tax Department. When once it becomes clear that the conviction of the accused in CC.134/98 had no nexus to the auction of the land in question by the Income – Tax Department in the present case, then it is un - understandable as to how the Income – Tax Department has been restraining the Deputy Commissioner from effecting change in the mutation entries in the name of the petitioners. When once the auction was conducted by the Income – Tax Department for the purpose of recovering Income – Tax dues from the

That apart, when the State Government in its communication dated 04/07/2011 (Annexure “G”) has made it clear to the Deputy Commissioner that the land in question belong to the erstwhile ruler of Mysore, the present stand taken that it is a tank bed and therefore, the mutation entries cannot be made in favour of the petitioners is also strange. When the Income-Tax authorities exercised their power for recovery of the Income – Tax dues from the citizen concerned by conducting an auction and the same was also upheld by this Court, the necessary concomitants of transfer of the land from the debtor to the auction purchaser must be

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

The aforesaid exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

As the matters have been heard finally and are disposed of, I.A.II/2013 filed for early hearing would not call for any order.