C.B Gautam Vs Union of India

Petitioner: C.B. Gautam

Defendant: Union of India & ors.

Statutes Referred:

The Constitution of India

Income Tax Act, 1961

Finance Act, 1986

Transfer of Property Act

Indian Registration Act, 1908

Cases Referred:

K.P. Varghese Vs Income Tax Officer Ernakulam and Anr. 1981 131 ITR 597 SC

Commisioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel and Anr. 1979 118 ITR 134

Kraipak Vs Union of India 1970 1SCR 457

Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 2 SCR

Government of India Vs Maxim A. Lobo and Anr. 1991 1901 TR101

Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioner has filed the civil writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the provisions in the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the Finance Act 1986 stating that the petitioner was planning to buy a land of address B-7/108A, at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi acquiring about 253 sq. mt. of area. So the deal has done that the premises should be transferred from the owner to the petitioner and the construction was also planned on the same day at the premises.
2. But after that, Chapter XX-C was challenged that the value of the property was not appropriate according to the market valuation or the area valuation. Then the Article 14 was also challenged that the leasehold rights were also infringes the right to equality.
3. Then under section269UD provisions, it was stated that the immovable property is not to be transferred by the way of lease purpose.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the provisions shall intervene the transfer of the immovable property?
2. Whether the property be applicable for the valuation of the market gradings?
3. Whether the construction be done or not?

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has stated in his petition that the immovable property does not have the appropriate valuation according to the valuer of the property under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The petitioner has also claimed that according to Article-14 of the Indian Constitution Act, his Right to Equality was also infringed as the lease rights was compromised at it’s level.

Defendant

1. The defendant has pleaded that the Article-14 was not compromised as later on the provisions of the Article-14 was removed. Further, under Section-269UD the lease rights fall under the act of immovable property as the premises does not fulfill the conditions of the Act in the matter of the valuation purpose.

Judgement

1. The court has taken the appropriate decision that the Article-14 was infringed due to this the defendant has been punished and been fined and with the judgement also been passed that the value of the property will be counted according to the valuation and will be passed as well.
2. Section-269UD provisions were also revoked and state that the construction of the property shall be permissible by the central Government and the Municipality of the state.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law was followed here that the constitutional right shall not be compromised and with that the act should not infringe or intervene any of the fundamental right.

Comment

According to me, the case has been quiet okramental in nature to proquer the happenings amongst any citizen or individual. The basic right or fundamental attribute of any matter shall be committed unduely of the process.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision regarding the case that the premises shall be contrasted and will not be undervalued in comparison with the market values.