2022 Supreme(Mad) 1124
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
P. Chellammal – Petitioner
Versus
The Associate Commissioner-II, Commercial Tax, Palani – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 21563 of 2022, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 15704, 15706 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.I. Muthiah.
For the Respondent: S.R.A. Ramachandran.
The court established the invalidity of the encumbrance created by the first respondent and affirmed the authority to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Revenue Recovery Proceedings - TNGST Act 1959, TNVAT Act 2006 - Section 24(3), Section 88, Section 43 - The court discussed the encumbrance created by the first respondent on the properties bound by a sale deed, and the validity of the encumbrance in relation to tax arrears. The court directed the first respondent to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands and to lift the encumbrance on the Petitioners' land.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought to quash the encumbrance created by the first respondent on their properties, claiming that the encumbrance did not bind their absolute right obtained under a sale deed. The second respondent, in a counter affidavit, stated that the properties were attached under the Revenue Recovery Act towards tax arrears and that the encumbrance could not be lifted unless the arrears were cleared.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the encumbrance created by the first respondent was not valid and directed the first respondent to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands. The court also ordered the lifting of the encumbrance on the Petitioners' land.
Issues: Validity of encumbrance in relation to tax arrears, rights of the Petitioners in the properties purchased under a sale deed, and the authority of the first respondent to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The encumbrance created by the first respondent was found to be invalid, and the court directed the first respondent to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands. The court also ordered the lifting of the encumbrance on the Petitioners' land.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for the first respondent to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings in respect of the remaining lands and to lift the encumbrance on the Petitioners' land.
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 498/2002/A3, dated 12.6.2019 and to quash the same so far as the petitioners-properties bound by the sale deed, dated 12.6.2006 registered as Doc. No. 1002 of 2006, on the file of the second respondent and consequently to direct the second respondent to delete the entries of encumbrance registered by the first respondent on its file in respect of the properties bound by the sale-deed dated 12.6.2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petition mentioned properties originally belongs to the third respondent/textile mills. While so, the second Petitioners father-in-law had purchased the said properties by way of sale deed, dated 12.6.2006 vide Doc. No. 1002 of 2006, on the file of the second respondent. After purchase, when it was verified, there is no encumbrance reflected in the register of the second respondent and from the date of purchase, the second respondents father-in-law was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. On 7.5.2021, the second respondent-s father-in- law had passed away leaving behind the second respondents husband and her mother-in-law as his legal heirs. Subsequently on 23.5.2021, second Petitioners husband P. Subramani died leaving behind the second petitioner and her children, the respondents 3 and 4. In respect of the properties of her father-in-law, the second respondent and the Petitioners herein are the legal heirs and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 2013, when the second Petitioner -s husband was alive, he availed credit facilities from Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Oddanchatram Branch and as security, for the repayment of said credit facilities, the second Petitioners father in law had mortgaged the title deeds, dated 3.10.2013 and the said credit facilities were classified as Non performing Assets and had initiated recovery measures. Hence the second Petitioner had approached the Bank for negotiation of settling the debts through one time settlement and the same was sanctioned and the Petitioners are directed to settle a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on or before 30.09.2022. When the Petitioners tried to sell the properties to the prospective buyer, the bank has also extended its cooperation and when encumbrance was verified, it was found that there was an encumbrance created by the first respondent in the Petition mentioned properties. When the same was enquired, it was found that the first respondent by its proceedings, dated 12.6.2019 directed the second respondent to register the encumbrance in respect of the Petition mentioned properties and sought to mark a copy to its file. At the time of initial purchase, there was no encumbrance and the subsequent registration of encumbrance is bereft of lawful sanction and the same does not bind the Petitioners absolute right, title and interest over the Petition mentioned properties obtained under the sale deed, dated 12.6.2006.Therefore the prospective buyer is not ready to get the sale deed executed with an encumbrance and the Petitioners were unable to settle the dues to the bank on one time settlement. Hence the Petitioners send a legal notice, dated 17.8.2022 to the respondents to delete the entries of encumbrance in respect of their properties. But no action was taken so far. Hence the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is stated that the second Petitioner is one of the legal heir of Thiru A. Palanichamy who purchased the petition mentioned properties from the third respondent/Mills who was the assessee under the first respondent and defaulter of tax arrears for 1996-97, 1997-98 to the tune of Rs. 7,68,394/- along with interest at Rs. 43,72,400/- ap