The validity of property transactions can be affected by the vendor's tax issues, leading to potential void status; bona fide purchaser claims necessitate separate civil proceedings for determination.

ORDER :

C.SARAVANAN, J.

S. Premalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned auction notice dated 25.09.2025. By the impugned auction notice, the auction was to be held on 28.10.2025 at 11.00 am.

3. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that indeed auction was held on 28.10.2025 and the successful bidder has also sought time for depositing the balance amount. It is noticed that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.28774 of 2019, wherein, the nd Petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to direct the 2 Respondent / Sub-Registrar to remove the attachment entry made by the 3rd Respondent / Tax Recovery Officer over the immovable property measuring 67 cents comprised in Survey No.238/4 (65 cents) and Survey No.238/5C (2 cents) situated at Mevalurkuppam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and to nd direct the 2 Respondent / Sub-Registrar to make appropriate entries stating that the said attachment has been lifted and to allow the Petitioner to enjoy the property without any hindrance.

4. By an Order dated 23.02.2024, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner with the following observations:-

“... 7. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is the original owner of the property and there was a complaint against the fourth respondent before the CBI and they have also conducted raid on 16.12.2010 and they have also requested the investigation wing of the third respondent to investigate regarding the evasion of the Income Tax. They have also issued summons on 17.02.2011 under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and issued scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 on 30.09.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the land from the fourth respondent only on 02.11.2011. Later, summons were issued by the third respondent and therefore, the transaction made by the fourth respondent is void.Since the sale made by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner is not valid one, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner had approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of an appeal in W.A.No.1518 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.09.2025 disposed of the appeal with the following observations:-

“17. In the light of the above discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived by the Writ Court in the Impugned Order dated 23.02.2024 in W.P.No.28774 of 2019.

18. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Liberty is however given to the Appellant / Writ Petitioner to file a civil suit to declare that the Appellant / Writ Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser of the said property from the 4th Respondent.

19. In view of the above reasoning, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.”

6. In the said order, the Division Bench of this Court has also observed as under:-

“9. The contention of the Appellant / Writ Petitioner that the Appellant / Writ Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser cannot be countenanced as the purchase of the said property was after assessment proceedings were initiated against the 4th Respondent under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was a bonafide purchaser or not certainly cannot be decided in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the Appellant / Writ Petitioner wants to establish that the Ap