the two petitioners challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar, dated August 11, 2014 (a copy of which is Annexure P-5), by which an order dated 14.06.2010 was made final and the legal heirs of the person whose property had been acquired by the Union of India (Department of Income Tax), were held entitled to file an application to claim the compensation amount.The said property was acquired by the Central Government under Section 269-F(6) of the Act, vide an order of acquisition passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Acquisition Range, Amritsar, dated 17.02.1978.
Sec. 269F(6), 269K of Income Tax Act, 1961—Writ— If the petitioners are still in occupation of the suit property as they claim, without making any comment on the correctness of that contention (or otherwise), it needs to be stated that such occupation is obviously illegal, with the property vesting in the respondents and in fact an order for taking possession having been passed in the year 1989, as already noticed. - RAVI KAPOOR V/s UOI - [2019] 419 ITR 084 (P&H)
the two petitioners challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar, dated August 11, 2014 (a copy of which is Annexure P-5), by which an order dated 14.06.2010 was made final and the legal heirs of the person whose property had been acquired by the Union of India (Department of Income Tax), were held entitled to file an application to claim the compensation amount.The said property was acquired by the Central Government under Section 269-F(6) of the Act, vide an order of acquisition passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Acquisition Range, Amritsar, dated 17.02.1978.
Sec. 269F(6), 269K of Income Tax Act, 1961—Writ— If the petitioners are still in occupation of the suit property as they claim, without making any comment on the correctness of that contention (or otherwise), it needs to be stated that such occupation is obviously illegal, with the property vesting in the respondents and in fact an order for taking possession having been passed in the year 1989, as already noticed. - RAVI KAPOOR V/s UOI - [2019] 419 ITR 084 (P&H)