ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging O.A.No.15 of 2011 pending against the petitioner on the file of the Special Court for Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act 1997 at Chennai.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned O.A. on the following grounds:

(a) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property for a valuable consideration.

(b) the petitioner has not purchased the property from the financial institution but has purchased the property from an individual.

(c) the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2006, whereas the complaint was filed by the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNPID Act') only in the year 2011. The petitioner has been enjoying the property for almost seven years till the date of filing of the complaint without any hindrance whatsoever.

(d) The petitioner has paid a total consideration of Rs.2,47,400/- for the purchase of the property from the third respondent which was the market value at the time of purchase. The first respondent is not the competent authority under the TNPID Act and therefore the complaint filed by him against the petitioner in O.A.No.15 of 2011 is not maintainable.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the depositors' money have not been repaid by M/s.Kanagam Chit Fund where the third respondent was a partner. According to them, criminal cases have been filed against the partners of the said Chit Fund, in which, the third respondent was also one of the partners. According to them, the liabilities of the Chit Fund concerns is approximately Rs.10,64,72,523/-. Since the subject property was purchased by the third respondent from and out of the depositors' money, the property which has been attached and presently stands in the name of the petitioner cannot be released. It is also their case that the petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser. According to them, he has purchased the property knowing fully well that the third respondent has misappropriated the funds of Kanagam Chit Funds and Kanagam Chits. According to them, the transfer made by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner and the sale deed executed in the year 2006 is a mala fide transfer and therefore, Section 8 of the TNPID Act gets attracted.

4. Heard Mr.Liagat Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. Insofar as the third respondent, though notice has been served and his name is also printed in the cause list, no one appears for the third respondent either in person or through his counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 8 of the TNPID Act and would submit that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and hence, Section 8 of the TNPID Act does not get attracted. He drew the attention of this Court to the sale deed dated 24.08.2006, by which the petitioner purchased the property from the third respondent in his individual capacity. He would further submit that the complaint was lodged by the first respondent against the petitioner in O.A.No.15 of 2011 only in the year 2011, after a lapse of almost six years from the date of purchase by the petitioner from the third respondent. He would further submit that the said property does not belong to either M/s.Kanagam Chit Funds or Kanagam Chits and, therefore, Section 8 of the TNPID Act does not get attracted. He also drew the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.942 dated 12.12.2011 issued under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, Forms [Police XIX] Department and would submit that it is only the District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam, who is a competent authority appointed under the TNPID Act. According to him, the competent authority is the District Revenue Officer and not the first respon