IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3209 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2010 Smt. Krishna Devi. -----Petitioner. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5. --- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction to quash releasing of gold jewellery weighing 1046 gms. to unauthorised persons and to give compensation to the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in search conducted on 20.11.1979 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, certain jewellery was seized from one Lachhman Dass Verma. The petitioner claims to be the wife of adopted son of Lachhman Dass namely Rajinder Kumar Verma. The assessment was done CWP No.3209 of 2009 in the year 1999 and part of jewellery was held to be belonging to the petitioner. Inspite of that, jewellery in question was given by respondent No.2 to unauthorised persons on 30.3.2000. This petition has been filed on 25.2.2009. Reliance has also been placed on order of this Court dated 11.11.2008 in CWP No.18727 of 2007 Rajinder Kumar Verma v. Union of India and others, Annexure P-2, filed by the husband of the petitioner. 3. The petition has been contested. In the reply filed on behalf of the revenue, it has been pleaded that the writ petition was barred by laches. In similar circumstances, CWP No.6016 of 2006 filed by Smt. Surinder Verma wife of Sham Lal verma, another adopted son of Lachhman Dass, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2006, Annexure A-2. It has also been stated that there was litigation pending about succession of late Lachhman Dass. Further stand of the revenue is that the seized gold was sold on 30.3.2000 and 11.4.2000 to recover the dues and thus, the jewellery in question was not available with the revenue. Similar stand has been taken by the private respondents who purchased the jewellery. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with order of this Court dated 11.11.2008, Annexure P-2 while learned counsel for the 2 CWP No.3209 of 2009 respondents submitted that case of the petitioner is covered by earlier order of this Court dated 12.12.2006, Annexure A-2. 6. We find that case of the petitioner is not covered by order of this Court dated 11.11.2008, as claimed by the petitioner. Therein, the jewellery in question had not yet been released or sold and was available with the revenue and there was no dispute about entitlement of the petitioner therein. As against this, in the present case, the jewellery is not available with the revenue but has been sold for recovery of dues and though the petitioner relied the order of assessment passed in the year 1999 and also claims that it was the duty of the revenue to return the jewellery within 120 days, thereafter, the petitioner never raised such claim for a period of about 10 years. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by order of this Court dated 12.12.2006, Annexure A-2, in the case of the sister-in-law of the petitioner, dismissing identical writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 04, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3