Disposed

A Bindu Santhosh v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2022WP/21294/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging attachment of property under the TN Protection of Interest of Depositors Act. It directed the petitioner to file an undertaking to pay the due amount to compound the offence and raise attachment before the appropriate court within two months, instead of quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit amount via affidavit within 15 days to enable distribution and compounding under Section 5 A; to raise attachment before appropriate Court within 2 months if conditions

A Bindu Santhosh Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 14/10/2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015 a n d

M.P.No.1 of 2015

A.Bindu Santhosh

Petitioner

The District Collector Kancheepuram.

¶12

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram.

¶14

The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Kancheepuram District.

¶15

G. Subramanian

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(R.5 impleaded vide, order dated 13/9/2022 made in M.P.No.2 of 2015 in W.P.No.21572 of 2015 by NSKJ)

¶18

Page No:1/8

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of third respondent in RC.No.2385/2015/B dated 8/7/2015 in respect of the property situate at Plot No.8/1 “B” Block, II Link Street, Sadasivam Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091 and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner ... Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For respondents ... Mr.Ramanlal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader for R.R.1 to 4. Mr.S.Diwakar for M/s.Kumar & Baskar for R.5 - - - - - O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned proceedings, dated 8/7/2015, in RC.N.2385/2015/B passed by the third respondent, in respect of the property, situate at Plot No.8/1 “B” Block, II Link Street, Sadasivam Nagar,

¶24

Page No:2/8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶27

Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091.

¶28

Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶29

The writ petitioner said to have purchased the property in dispute, vide, registered Sale Deed, dated 10/1/2000, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Velachery. The property tax assessment has also been transferred in the name of the petitioner and she is paying the Property Tax and other charges to the statutory authorities.

¶30

On 8/7/2015, third respondent had issued the impugned notice, alleging that the Government under G.O.Ms.No.1405 Home (Courts) Department, dated 12/10/1998 have ordered Attachment of Flats, constructed in S.Nos.69/23 and 69/24 of Madipakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, for reconveyance of default in return of deposit by New India Finance and Investments, Chennai. According to the petitioner, before filing of the writ petition only, she came to know that property has been attached in the year 1980

¶31

Page No:3/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶34

itself and hence, she seeks to quash the impugned notice.

¶35

Heard Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶36

The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that properties have been attached under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, in the year 1998 itself. After attachment, property has been transferred. Vendor of the petitioners through Power Agent filed I.A., before the Court of Special Judge under TNPID Act, 1997. Vide, order, dated 3/7/2002, learned Special Judge, dismissed the application. Therefore, attachment was made absolute, by an order of this Court, dated 25/5/2000. The competent authority has decided to sell the property in public auction and therefore, notice has been issued. Hence, the same cannot be questioned by the writ petitioner.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

¶38

Page No:4/8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶41

petitioner is willing to deposit the amount before the competent authority, so that the matter could be disposed of.

¶42

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the entire amount due is payable by all the writ petitioner, competent authority can distribute the amount with the sanction of the Special Court with reasonable interest. Though the offence is punishable, the main object is to realise the amount, distribute the same to the depositors, who lost the money.

¶43

In such a view of the matter, petitioner is directed to file an affidavit of undertaking before the competent authority, within a period of fifteen days, from today. Thereafter, the competent authority/fourth respondent shall take steps to distribute the amount with the sanction of the Court and also make steps to compound the offence, as per Section 5 A of the said Act.

¶44

In the event, if the writ petitioner has failed to pay the amount, as

¶45

Page No:5/8

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶48

agreed before the competent authority, by way of an affidavit, it is well open to the competent authority to proceed further, as per law. If the amount is deposited and the entire amount is realised and distributed, then the writ petitioner may seek for raising the attachment before the appropriate Court by filing an appropriate application. The said exercise shall be completed, within a period of two months, from the date of filing of the application.

¶49

With the above direction, these writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶50

14/10/2022

¶51

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order

¶52

mvs.

¶53

Page No:6/8

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶56

¶57

The District Collector Kancheepuram.

¶58

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶59

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tambaram.

¶60

The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Kancheepuram District.

¶61

Page No:7/8

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶64

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs.

¶65

W.P.No.21294 of 2015

¶66

Page No:8/8

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

Writ Petition No.21294 of 2015

¶69

14/10/2022

¶70

Page No:9/8

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A Bindu Santhosh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Bindu Santhosh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Lizy George Chemmanur Vs Union of India Rep. by Its

Mr.K.Praveenkumar Vs the Director Collector

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

D.Thiruttani Kuttu, Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Pugazhendhi Vs The District Collector

A.Jayasekar Vs The District Collector