O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the Notice of Attachment dated 14.08.2013 issued in Form 5 under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was one of the Director of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited. It was engaged in the sale of machine parts by engaging more than 400 workers. However, the Company suffered losses and ultimately it was closed down on 28.03.1998.

Due to non payment of salaries, several employees as respondents 3 to 115 filed different computation petitions before the Labour Court under Section 33(c) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Several awards have been passed and the respondents 3 to 115 are entitled for amounts claimed by them. In the computation petitions, Labour Court passed award by specifically holding that the award is passed only against the Company i.e. M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited and not as against the individual capacity of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the salary of the employees have to be settled by the Company and not by the petitioner out of his separate properties. The petitioner has purchased the properties by the registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1973 and 21.05.1974 comprised in SF.No.198/3, 200/2, 203/2, 204(part), 205, 208, 165, 167/3, 168/2, 202 and 222/2, Odandurai Village, Mettupalayam. These properties are nothing to do with the Company and subsequently the petitioner settled these properties in his daughter's favour i.e. Gayathri under the settlement deed dated 04.04.2007. Even then, the second respondent issued the impugned order of attachment made under Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 in Form No.5 to attach the properties purchased in his individual name.

3. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court by order dated 31.08.2009 passed order in the computation petitions and specifically referred that the respondents 3 to 115 are entitled to monetary claim from the management of the Company by name M/s.Shri Lakshmi Gayathri Engineering Works Limited and Mr.V.Gopalakrishnan who is the Chairman cum Director of the said Company is not personally liable to pay to the respondents 3 to 115. Therefore, the order can be passed only as against the Company and not as against the petitioner herein in his individual capacity. Even then, the second respondent issued the impugned notice of attachment to attach the property which were purchased by the petitioner on his individual capacity for attachment. He further submitted that before issuing Form No.5 as contemplated under Section 27 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the respondent ought to have followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 25 and 26 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Before attachment of the property, the demand to be served. Thereafter, if the said demand is not paid or not arranged for securing the same shall have been entered into, to the satisfaction of the Collector in that behalf, he shall proceed to recover the arrear by the attachment and sale of the defaulters' land. In the case on hand, the second respondent did not follow the procedure as contemplated under the Revenue Recovery Act.

3.1 He further submitted that his daughter already filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.4214 of 2009 for mandamus restraining the second respondents from seizure and distress sale of the subject property. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2009. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed that the Government passed order on 07.02.2007 and the settlement deed is came to be signed only on 04.04.2007. Therefore, the demand made by the his daughter only to scuttle the revenue recovery proceedings with untenable contentions is not permissible. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's daughter pref