ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition in a nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 their men or agents herein from sealing the property of the petitioner situated in Survey R.S.No.171/25-A-1 admeasuring 1 cents and 250 sq links along with the building in Door No.1-177, 1-177/1 to 4 of Kulasekaram Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District on the guise of G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 04.06.2012.

2.Prior to the sale, he verified the entries with regard to encumbrance and found that there is no encumbrance, he purchased the above said property from Saroja Thirumal, Unni Sankar and Susi Priya. Thereafter, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, a criminal case has been foisted in Crime No.8 of 2005 under Section 409 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act against erstwhile owner namely, one Saroja Thirumal, Unnisankar alleging that he has collected deposits from various depositors and he has not returned the same amounts. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered and chargesheet has been filed in C.C.No.25 of 2010 and the same is pending before the Special Court for TNPID Cases, Madurai. A summon was also issued to him for the attachment of the properties in I.A.No.47 of 2012 in C.C.No.25 of 2012 on the file of the TNPID Court and the same is pending. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and at the time of purchase, no encumbrance revealed in the record of RDO.

3.Now on the strength of the order passed by the Home Department, the respondents herein without issuing any notice to the petitioner, passed the above said G.O. Thereafter, the respondents 2 to 4 under the guise of the above G.O.Ms.No.392 came to the premises of the petitioner and attempted to lock and seal the aforesaid property on 18.02.2014. The petitioner explained about his purchase and has no knowledge about the aforesaid G.O. The competent Authority has to apply before the Special Court for making the interim order of attachment to make it absolute. But without following the aforesaid procedure, they attempted to lock and seal the property and hence, the petition was filed for forbearing the respondents from sealing the property.

4.No counter was filed on the side of the respondents.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has purchased the property from Saroja Thirumal, Unni Sankar and Susi Priya through sale deed dated 03.03.2011 for valuable consideration. On and from the date of sale deed, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the meantime, the first respondent without any notice, passed G.O.Ms.No.392 dated 04.06.2012. The petitioner has no knowledge about the G.O and the G.O. was not served to the petitioner. The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. At the time of purchase, there was no encumbrance of the property. After proper enquiry only, the petitioner has purchased the property. While so, the respondents 2 to 4 attempted to lock and seal the property based on G.O.Ms.No.392. Since the property on the date of passing attachment order belong to the petitioner without his knowledge, the G.O. has been passed. Therefore, the respondents have no right to lock and seal the property and therefore, he filed this writ petition.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would contend that the FIR was registered in the year 2005 as against the vendor of the petitioner and thereafter, the G.O.Ms.No.392 was passed on 04.06.2012. In the meanwhile, in order to cheat the depositors, the petitioner has created the aforesaid encumbrance certificate. The petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser and already the property was attached. Therefore, without challenging the attachment orders, this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

7.This Court heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

8.On perusal of the records, it is seen that a case in Crime No.8 of

2005 has been registered under Sect