IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 633 OF 2009 Minoo N. Bharucha ......Petitioner. v. Tax Recovery Officer, Range 16(2) Mumbai & Ors.......Respondents. Mr.P.J.Pardiwala, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Jitendra Jain i/by Maneksha & Sethna advs. For Petitioner. Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mr.Y.P.Patki advs. For Respondents. CORAM: Ferdino I. Rebello & J.H.Bhatia, JJ. DATED: 8TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. 1 Petitioner claims ownership of the flat which is purportedly attached for dues of a person residing therein who has subsequently expired and presently his legal heirs are residing there. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that she being the owner, flat could not have been attached. 2 On behalf of the respondents/Revenue, the learned counsel submits that under the Second Schedule of the Income-Tax Act, there are provisions whereby such a claimant can file his objections to the order of attachment. In fact, the petitioner has so filed. The 2 learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue further submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy and as such this petition ought not be entertained. 3 On behalf of the Revenue, the learned counsel makes a statement that they will decide the claim of the petitioner within five weeks from today, statement is accepted. 3 We dispose off the petition with direction to the Revenue authorities to dispose off the petitioner’s objection within five weeks from today. All the contentions as raised in the petition are left open in the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)