Authorities can attach properties to protect depositors’ interests, not requiring links to crime proceeds, affirming constitutional property rights under Article 300 A.

ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent thereby refused to register the settlement deed executed by the petitioner dated 26.09.2024 on the ground that the subject property is under the proposal of attachment in pursuant to the registration of criminal case on the file of the third respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The property comprised in Old Survey No.1264 (re-survey No.135/22B) to an extent of 27 cents and building, situated at Palugal Village under registered Will deed dated 17.04.1976 executed by the petitioner's since deceased mother, viz., Kunji Amma; the property comprised in Old Survey No.1262 to an extent of 3 cents (At present, as per lie, 4 cents in re-survey No.133/11 and 1 cent in re-survy No. 133/12A), situated at Palugal Village, under the registered Will deed; and the property comprised in old Survey No.1440 (re-survey No. 168/14A) to an extent of 5 cents situated at Palugal village under registered partition deed dated 19.04.1971; the property comprised in old Survey No.1261A (re-survey No.132/12A) to an extent of ¾ cent situated at Palugal village under registered partition deed dated 19.04.1971. In total, the petitioner was entitled to an extent of 37 ¾ cents of land and building. The properties were settled by way of settlement deed dated 28.05.2009 in favour of the petitioner's son. That apart, the property comprised in re-survey No.168/13B situated at Palugal Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, to an extent of 7 cents by the registered sale deed dated 17.05.1994. Once again, the petitioner's son had executed settlement deed dated 05.12.2016, in favour of the petitioner in respect of the properties to an extent of 44 ¾ cents. Now, the petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of his grand son and executed settlement deed dated 26.09.2024 and it was presented for registration before the fifth respondent on 01.10.2024. However, the fifth respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the third respondent by its communication dated 30.09.2019 already submitted objections and also the second respondent by its communication dated 02.11.2019 informed the fourth respondent that the subject properties are under the proposal of attachment in pursuant to the registration of criminal case as against the son of the petitioner herein, viz., Rajendran.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 have no authority or jurisdiction to attach the property, the Government only is the authority to attach the property under the TNPID Act. The impugned order of the respondents 4 and 5 are violative of the petitioner's rights, including the fundamental rights and the constitutional rights under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. That apart, the subject property has derived title by the petitioner, that too in the year 1971 and 1976. Those properties were not purchased from any crime proceeds. Therefore, the registering authority should not to have refused to register the settlement deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioner's grand son.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR-2005-SC-3401 ( State of Rajasthan and others V. Basant Nahata ), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any substantive provisions contained in a parliamentary or legislative act, he cannot be refrained from dealing with his property in any manner, he likes, such statutory interdict would be opposed to one's