Madras High Court
V.Revathy vs State Rep. By on 5 January, 2023
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
WP.No.23718 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 05.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
WP.No.23718 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
V.Revathy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State rep. by
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Economic Offences Wing-II,
3rd Floor, TNHB Complex,
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offences Wing-II,
3rd Floor, TNHB Complex,
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
4.The Competent Authority &
The District Revenue Officer,
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
5.K.K.Bhaskaran
6.T.N.Shobavathi
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23718 of 2014
7.T.Hephzibah Beulah
8.T.Diana Victoria ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to clal for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed
by the first respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No.1144 Home (Police XIX) Department dated
12.12.2013, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Diwakar
for M/s.Kumar and Baskar
For Respondents : Mr.Alagu Gowtham (for R1 to R4)
Government Advocate
Mr.A.Palaniappan (for R7 and R8)
No Appearance (for R5 and R6)
ORDER
The petitioner claims to be a partner in one Southern Enterprises (partnership). The business that the partnership was engaged in has not been adverted to anywhere in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and it is only the counter filed by R1 to R4 that one ascertains the background and factual aspects of the matter. The partnership, as well as other financial institutions that were started by the petitioner and her husband, had floated schemes calling for deposits from the public.
2.Several members of the public were lured into investing in the schemes. When 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.23718 of 2014 the amounts were not repaid by the petitioner and her husband complaints came to be filed by the investors and cases were lodged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The first of the complaints were registered on 25.02.1998 and all complaints were transferred thereafter to the Economic Offences Wing for investigation. Preliminary investigation revealed that the partnership had collected deposits to the tune of Rs.3.6 (approx.) crores from 313 depositors and defaulted in repayment of the same.
3.The assets of the financial institution were attached under G.O.Ms.No.360, Home Department, dated 03.04.2001. The property which is at issue in this writ petition comprises 6000 sq ft. in patta No.2573 in Survey No.121/5A/1A/1B at No.59, Oragadam Village together with building bearing Door No.6, Parameswaran Street, No.12, S.V.Nagar, Oragadam, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053 (property/property in question).
4. This property had come to be included in G.O.Ms.No.10, Home (COURTS IIA) Department, dated 03.01.2002. The property in question was thus under interim attachment per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 03.01.2022 and the matter was taken up by the Special Judge under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (TNPID Act).
5.Notice was issued to all the parties including the petitioner as well as, Arun 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.23718 of 2014 Kumar and Sulochana, who are arrayed as R21 and R22, since, admittedly there is a sale deed on record as per which the petitioner has sold the property in question to the aforesaid persons as early as in 1997. Notice is stated to have been issued to R21 and R22 in the original application, but there was no response from them. Based upon the submissions advanced by this petitioner, the impugned G.O. came to be passed in G.O.Ms.No.1144 dated 12.12.2013 delinking the property in question from the list of assets in regard to the matter pending before the TNPID Court.
6.In the meantime, it is the case of R7 and R8 before me that they are bonafide purchasers of the property in question from R5 and R6, upon whom service is complete, but there is no appearance today.
7.Learned counsel appearing for R7 and R8 would point out that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging G.O.Ms.No.1144 as it is her endevour to have the property brought back into the basket of assets before the TNPID Court. However, how she proposes to get over the sale deed executed by her in 1997 is a mystery.
8.This aspect of the matter is certainly to be looked in by the TNPID Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the sale deed dated 08.10.1997, which is a registered sale deed was executed under coersion. The State has comeforth with yet another dimension to the matter, wherein for the first time in their counter dated Nil 2015, they make reference to the property in question already having been taken over by the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.23718 of 2014 Government under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 as surplus land. The State was directed to produce the acquisition order and a copy of order dated 11.03.1991 passed by the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant Commission (Urband Land Tax) has been produced.
9.The submissions of the State, appear prima facie, to be misconceived seeing as, if it was the case of the State that the land was surplus land that vested in the State, there was no reason to have passed of G.O.Ms.No.10 or G.O.Ms.No.1144 on 03.01.2002 and 12.12.2013 respectively. One thing is clear. It is necessary for the TNPID Court to look into the factual assertions made by each of these parties, test the same in the light of the evidence that may be putforth by them and take a considered view in regard to the title to the property in question.
10. Such an exercise evidently, cannot be engaged in by this Court sitting in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, while the impugned G.O. is not disturbed, it is made clear that none of the parties before the Court will deal with the property in question in any way till the directions contained in the paragraphs to follow reach a logical conclusion.
11. The parties will appear before the TNPID Court on 23.01.2023 at 10.30 a.m. and the Court will re-hear Original Application No.14 of 2005 solely in regard to the property in question. Parties are at liberty to putforth their submissions in regard to their 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.23718 of 2014 rival claims and also tender evidence in suport of their submissions. Upon hearing all parties, let orders be passed by the Court within a period of four (4) weeks i.e. on or before 23.02.2023.
12.This writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.List on 27.02.2023 to report compliance with this order.
05.01.2023 vs Index : Yes Speaking Order To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, 3rd Floor, TNHB Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, 3rd Floor, TNHB Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
4.The Competent Authority & The District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.23718 of 2014 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
vs WP.No.23718 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 05.01.2023 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis