The Special Court under TNPID Act, 1997 acts as a Civil Court and exercises powers under the Civil Procedure Code. The appeals filed by the Appellant were maintainable as Criminal Appeals.

1. The Appellant/Third Party has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.224 of 2014 as against the order dated 11.03.2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 passed by the Learned Special Judge {under TNPID Act, (in F.E.S) 1997}, Chennai.

2. The Appellant/Third Party has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.225 of 2014 as against the order dated 11.03.2014 in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge {under TNPID Act, (in F.E.S) 1997}, Chennai.

3. The trial Court while passing the impugned order in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.82 of 2014 and in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.83 of 2014 in I.A.No.No.3 of 2013 in O.A.No.12 of 1999 on 11.03.2014, in paragraph – 8 had observed the following:-

“It is pertinent to mention here that the 3rd respondent in the petition already had been filed I.A.No.129/2005 to evict the encroachers in respect of Survey No.927/1C, 920/1A and 920/B and the same was allowed by this Court after disposal of I.A.No.129/2005., the Collector of Chennai, District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur have not taken any steps to effect the encroachers subsequent to the disposal of the said I.A.No.129/2005, it was informed in the Patta land, the Ambattur tahsildar also produced the list of additional encroachers. Admittedly, the petitioner name has not find place in the encroachers list. This Court has come to the conclusion that after passing of G.O.Ms.No.263 dated 24.02.1999. The properties, which are mentioned in the said G.Os. are in the hands of the revenue authority. So, the revenue authority was directed to remove the encroachers. In view of the order passed in I.A.No.3/2013 dated 27.3.2013 and now the revenue authority has taken steps to remove the encroachers. When O.A.No.12/1999 was pending, this present petitioner had filed I.A.No.15/2007 seeking for the purpose of releasing some of the properties in the said G.Os. But on the other hand, the petitioner has not pursued that application. Hence, the said petition was dismissed for default. This petitioner had knowledge about the attachment of the properties. But the petitioner has not taken any effective steps to raise the attachment, which are mentioned in the petition. Admittedly, as per the documents produced by the petitioner, he is claiming right over the property in Survery Nos.227/1A, 927/1C and 920/C. But in this application, he is claiming that for Survey Nos.925 Part, 920/1 and 925/6. The O.A.No.12/1999 was disposed on merits and further I.A.No.3/2013 was also disposed on merits. The petitioner's name has not shown as a respondent in the said I.A., that the said petition was disposed on merits. Under these circumstances, this present petition is filed to implead the petitioner as a party/respondent in I.A.No.3/2013 dated 27.03.2013 is not maintainable for numbering. This point is ordered accordingly.”

and resultantly, rejected the unnumbered petitions.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner/Third Party, the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Petitioner had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the property which was the subject matter of the Attachment in the year 2000, after the Special Court had ordered permission to the Accused for entering into such agreement for sale.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court had failed to see that after entering into an agreement to sell a portion of property under the order of Attachment, the Appellant/Petitioner had filed the petition before the Court for depositing sale consideration in regard to 800 sq.ft. of land and in fact, the Appellant/Petitioner had deposited the amount before the Court on 23.01.2001.

6. The specific plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner is that the trial Court failed to take into consideration that the total sale consideration in regard to the entire