JUDGMENT :

Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

The above noted batch of writ applications, projects a challenge to the jurisdiction of the income tax authorities in initiation of proceedings under section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short, Benami Act of 1988), as amended vide Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short, Benami Amendment Act of 2016), which came into effect on 01st November, 2016. Hence, the matters have been entertained collectively for final adjudication at this stage by this common order consented by the counsel for the parties.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts needs to be taken note of for adjudication of the controversy are: that the Income Tax Department conducted search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on various premises belonging to the petitioners and in course of search and seizure, several incriminating documents were found, indicating several benami transactions in purchase of lands involved herein. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued under section 24 (1) of the amended Benami Act of 1988, to show cause why action should not be taken against them under Section 24 (4) of the amended Benami Act of 1988, as the consideration was actually paid by the petitioners but the land was purchased in the name and by another person, thus, making it a clear case of benami transaction. The respondent department made order of provisional attachment under Section 24 (3) of the amended Benami Act, in respect of the properties mentioned in the show cause notices. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that the initiating officer has acted without jurisdiction, as the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, came into effect on 01st November, 2016 and the alleged benami transactions took place prior to that date. The said notices were responded in the same terms. However, the Initiating Officer of the respondent department made order under Section 24 (4) of the amended Benami Amendment Act of 2016, continuing the provisional attachment of the properties involved herein. Thereafter, further show cause notices were issued by the Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of the Benami Amendment Act of 2016, as to why the order of provisional attachment of the benami properties should not be confirmed and the matters are still pending before the said authority. The petitioners, aggrieved of initiation of the proceedings and orders aforesaid, for being without jurisdiction, have instituted the instant writ petitions before this court.

3. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, stated that the initiation of the very proceedings for provisional attachment of the alleged benami properties, from the very beginning is per se illegal and arbitrary, as the alleged benami transactions took place before the search proceedings and the Benami Amendment Act of 2016, that came into existence with effect from 01st November, 2016, vide notification dated 25th October, 2016, and therefore, the Benami Amendment Act of 2016, shall have prospective effect. Since the alleged benami transactions and date of discovery of the alleged benami transactions, are, of a date prior to coming into force of the Benami Amendment Act of 2016; hence, the provisions as such are inapplicable to the present cases.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently asserted that the intent in introduction of the Benami Amendment Act of 2016, was to eradicate the discrepancies and loop holes that have crept in with passage of time after the introduction of the Benami Act of 1988. Further, referring to the text of section 1 and 6 of the Benami Amendment Act of 2016, it is vociferously contended that it was never the intention of either the legislation or the executive that the provisions of the Benami Amendment Act of 2016; be applicable with retrospective effect. According to the learned counsel for the p