Mr.m.g.m.maran @ Nesamani Maran v. The Tax Recovery Officer Vii, Company Range-Iv, Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Mr.M.G.M.Maran @ Nesamani Maran ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Tax Recovery Officer VII, Company Range-IV, Room No.327, III Floor, New Building, Income Tax office, 'Ayakar Bhavan' Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2. Maxworth Home Limited, Maxworth Nagar, No.153, S.Kolathur, Chennai-117. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 075.... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprisedin TR No.M-47/2006-07, dated 11.09.2006, on thefile of the 1[st] respondent, quash the same consequentiallydirect the 3[rd] respondent to remove/delete the entryrelating to attachment order dated 11.09.2006, in so farPlot No.880 in DTCP approved layout No.12/75 in SurveyNo.397/17(Part) & 398/3 (Part) situated at 153, SunnambuKolathur, No.97, Madipakkam II Village, Tambaram Taluk,Kancheepuram District.For Petitioner in both W.P.s : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents in both W.P.s: Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counselfor R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.J.Shenbagalingam for R2 Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, Government Pleader for R3 O R D E R When the order impugned in this Writ Petition was putunder challenge by one of the subsequent purchasers underthe 2[nd] respondent, this Court in more than one order hadquashed the impugned order in so far as it relates to thoseowners are concerned. The relevant portion of one such orderpassed in W.P. No.27245 of 2013, dated 06.11.2014 in thecase of Geetha Rajagopalan Vs. The Tax Recovery officerVII, Company Range-IV, Nungambakkam, Chennai and othersreads as follows :- “7. The second respondent does not claim any titleover the property, which is the subject matter ofattachment. Admittedly, the order of attachmentrefers to house plot Nos.38 and 39 in DTCPapproved layout No.351/73 situated at 153,Sunnambu Kolathur, No.97, Madipakkam II Village,Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. As on thedate of attachment, the second respondent was notthe lawful owner of the above said plot since thesale deed has been executed and registered infavour of the petitioner as early as on16.07.1997. The second respondent does not disputethe fact that they are not claiming title over theproperty. In such event, the Income Tax Departmentcannot attach the property mentioned supra, whichis owned by the petitioner as it cannot be treatedto be a property owned by the defaulter viz., thesecond respondent. Therefore, the impugned orderof attachment is necessarily to be vacated in sofar as the property of the petitioner viz., PlotNos.38 an 39 in DTCP approved layout No.351/73situated at 153, Sunnambu Kolathur, No.97,MadipakkamIIVillage,TambaramTaluk,Kancheepuram District. Having held so, it has tobe seen as to whether the petitioner is entitledto relief in this writ petition on the ground thatthe proceedings dated 15.11.2012 has not beenchallenged. According to the second respondent,this proceedings is an order passed by the firstrespondent after considering the petitioner'sclaim for raising the order of attachment.8. On a careful reading of the communicationdated 15.11.2012, it is seen that it is not anorder passed by the first respondent on the claimmade by the petitioner for raising attachment,rather, a communication sent to the petitioner by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent viz., the Tax RecoveryOfficer intimating as to what circumstances theattachment order dated 11.09.2006 was passed andalso enclosing a copy of the order of attachment.Therefore, the communicated dated 15.11.2012 isnot an order passed by Tax Recovery Officer. But,it is in fact a reply to the petitioner'srepresentations made to the Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Chennai dated 28.05.2012 and19.06.2012 and the petitioner need notindependently challenge the communication dated15.11.2012, consequently, it is held that it isnot a proceedings under the provisions of Rule 11as stipulated under II Schedule and hence, thepetitioner could not be driven to institute asuit.” With the above observation, this Court had quashed theimpugned order in so far as it relates to the property ofthe petitioners therein and also observed that the orderwill not in any way prejudice the rights of the 2[nd]respondent in executing the lawful rights available underthe agreement they had entered into with the petitionerstherein. 2. In the instant case, the 2[nd] respondent herein hadsold the subject property in Plot No.880 to the vendor ofthe petitioner herein vide Sale deed dated 12.10.1994 inDocument No.1594/95. The petitioner had purchased it fromhis Vendor on 07.08.2000. As such, if at all, the 2[nd]respondent intends to exercise any rights available, itwould be against the Vendor of the petitioner, who was theagreement holder. Subject to the terms of such an agreement,the petitioner will be at liberty to exercise his rights ifany. With this liberty, the impugned order dated 11.09.2006comprised in TR No.M-47/2006-07, on the file of 1[st]respondent is quashed in so far as it relates to thepetitioner's property at Plot No.880, in DTCP approvedlayout No.12/75 in Survey No.397/17 (Part) & 398/3 (Part)situated at 153, Sunnambu Kolathur, No.97, Madipakkam IIVillage, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Accordingly,this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Tax Recovery Officer VII, Company Range-IV, Room No.327, III Floor, New Building, Income Tax office, 'Ayakar Bhavan' Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.2. Maxworth Home Limited, Maxworth Nagar, No.153, S.Kolathur, Chennai-117. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 075. +1cc to Mr.R.Karthikeyan , Advocate SR.No. 59836+1cc to Mr.J.Paranthaman , Advocate SR.No. 60291W.P. 25647 of 2018andW.M.P. 29831 of 2018A.SK(19/08/2019)