Nominees do not hold exclusive ownership and may not shield inherited property from tax-related attachments against other heirs.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. The Petitioner is challenging an order of attachment dated 26/09/2023 passed by Respondent No. 1, apparently under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967 (‘the said Rules of 1967’ for short) made under rule making power of the State Government under Section 328 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘the Code’ for short). By the said impugned Order, the total/proportional right, title and interest of the Petitioner’s son Jayesh Madhusudan Panchal, a proprietor of M/s. Sai Electricals in Flat No. 201, Hayat Palace Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Patel Compound, Pushpa Park, Daftary Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400097 (‘the said flat’ for short), is attached for non payment of tax dues by said Mr. Jayesh. The Petitioner is also seeking directions to the Respondents to withdraw the said impugned order and restrain them from taking any steps in furtherance thereof.

2. At the outset it is necessary to note that neither rule making power of the State nor the competence of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing the impugned order is challenged. The challenge in the petition in limited based on Petitioner’s right vis-a-vis the said flat, as will be clear in the narration to follow.

3. The case of the Petitioner is as under.

The Petitioner is the wife of late Mr. Madhusudan Durlabhbhai Panchal (‘late Madhusudan’ for short) who jointly owned the said flat. Late Madhusudan passed away on 24/05/2017 intestate, leaving behind the Petitioner (widow) and three sons namely Mr. Pankaj, Mr. Jayesh and Mr. Prashant. On the demise of late Madhusudan, necessary application under Form No. 15 was made to the said Co-Operative Housing Society for membership and transfer of share and interest in Petitioner’s name. Along with the said application, a duly notarised affidavit, an indemnity bond, undertaking and declaration were also given. Out of these documents, only the affidavit dated 30/06/2017 is signed by the Petitioner and her three sons. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that they have no objection for accepting the Petitioner as member of the society and for transferring all the shares held by late Madhusudan and his interest in the said flat to the Petitioner alone. The other documents are signed by the Petitioner only. The said Co- operative Housing Society thereafter transferred the share certificate (noting shares of the late Madhusudan) in favour of the Petitioner on 25/02/2018. Thus as on date, the share certificate is in Petitioner’s exclusive name. In November 2024, when the Petitioner sought to transfer her right, title and interest in the said flat, the society brought to her knowledge the impugned order of attachment. According to the Petitioner, the said attachment order is never served upon her. The Petitioner was shocked to know about attachment of the flat for alleged outstanding demand of tax and interest from one of her sons, namely Mr. Jayesh. The Petitioner claims to be completely clueless about business activities of her son Jayesh. The Petitioner and her other two sons, namely Mr. Prashant and Mr. Pankaj have met the Respondent Authorities and also filed reply contending inter alia that the Petitioner is undisputed sole owner of the said flat, which cannot be attached for the recovery of outstanding tax or interest thereon from her son Jayesh. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned attachment order is bad in law in view of the Petitioner being exclusive owner of the said flat. He submitted that the i