JUDGMENT

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - The petitioner along with respondent Nos.7 and 8 jointly purchased Ac.6.25 gts in Sy.No.64 of Bandalguda Jagir village under registered sale deed dt.29-01-2008 (document No.536 of 2008).

2. After the said purchase, the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 came to know that a civil suit O.S.No.150 of 2005 was pending with regard to the said property before the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. They were impleaded as parties in the said suit, and suit was subsequently settled and the settlement was reduced into writing on 27-04-2015.

3. As per the said settlement deed executed between the contesting parties to the said suit, an extent of Ac.1.10 gts was jointly given to respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the petitioner and they gave up their right in the remaining land covered by the registered sale deed dt.29-01-2008 (Doc.No.536 of 2008).

4. Petitioner contends that after execution of the deed of settlement dt.27-04-2015, petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 became joint owners of Ac.1.10 gts and each of them had undivided share therein and there was no partition by metes and bounds as per their entitlement.

5. The 3rd respondent, on 23-01-2016 issued a proclamation of sale of i/3rd share of the property of Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.No.64 of Bandlaguda Jagir village belonging to petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 on the ground that the 7th respondent had outstanding tax dues of Rs. 19.69 crores excluding interest and other charges which arose in connection with search and seizure proceedings at the premises of the 7th respondent Company; that 7th respondent offered its 1/3rd undivided share in the above land as well as other immovable properties owned by it for the purpose of attachment; that the 3rd respondent proposes to conduct auction of the undivided 1/3rd share of the 7th respondent and asked the petitioner to buy out the 7th respondent, but the petitioner gave a reply on 09-03-2017 expressing his inability to buy and stating that he had no objection if the undivided 1/3rd share of 7th respondent is sold by 3rd respondent.

6. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent however issued a certificate of sale in Form No.I.T.C.P.20 (under Rule 65 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961) on 24-04-2017 not of the undivided 1/3rd share of the 7th respondent but alienating a specific area of Ac.0.16 gts. equivalent to 2016 sq. yards within the specified boundaries in favour of 4th respondent without there being any partition of the respective shares of petitioner, respondent Nos.7 and 8 and though their shares were still undivided.

7. Petitioner contends that 3rd respondent had no right to issue the said certificate of sale on 24-04-2017 and to get it registered as document No.2353 of 2017 before the Sub-Registrar, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District with specific boundaries and at best he can only issue certificate of sale in respect of undivided 1/3rd share of 7th respondent. It is also contended that 4th respondent thereafter executed two registered sale deeds document Nos.3768 of 2018 and 3769 of 2018 on 13-04-2018 in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and even the said sale deeds have to be set aside.

8. It is contended that 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to partition the properties by metes and bounds by specifying the share of the 7th respondent which only a Civil Court can do in a civil suit filed for partition by one of the joint shares; and that the 3rd respondent arrogated to himself the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to effect the said partition and his action is illegal.

9. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the action of the Tax Recovery Officer-3, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Hyderabad (3rd respondent) in issuing certificate of sale in Form No.I.T.C.P.20, which is registered as Document No.2353 of 2017 in the name of the 4th respondent Company and also the subsequent action of the 4th respondent in executing the two registered sal